Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

208 F.2d 45

Docket No. 11584.

Wanzer v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 23, 1953.

Decided Nov. 5, 1953.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-11-05

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1960 · most notably Greene v. United States (1959), Parelman v. Parelman (1954)

23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3 counsel of record

Relies on Hirabayashi v. United States · United States v. Illinois Pure Aluminum Co. · Kinnison v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-11-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty.. Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard and William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Attys., at time record was filed, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.

¶4Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellant was convicted in a jury trial on two counts of an indictment. Sentences were imposed on each count to run concurrently. We find no merit in appellant’s objection to the trial court’s refusal to direct acquittal on the first count charging promotion of a numbers game in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 1501 (1951). Hence we need not consider appellant’s objection to the conviction on *46the second count charging possession of numbers slips in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1502 (1951) since the sentence imposed for conviction on that count is less than the sentence imposed on the first count.1

¶7Affirmed.

/208/f2d/45 · .json · Public domain