423 F.2d 676 - United States v. Auerbach — 423 F.2d 676

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1995

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Robert Orseek, Podhurst & Orseck, Miami, Fla., for Auerbach and Gottlieb.

¶2Joseph J. Lyman, Washington, D. C., for Randeli.

¶3William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., William A. Daniel, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

¶5Before WISDOM, GEWIN, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7All of the defendants-appellants have petitioned for rehearing. One of the appellants, David P. Randeli, has reiterated his original contention that the trial court’s order dismissing portions of the indictment constituted an amendment of the indictment thereby ousting the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial. In our per curiam opinion of December 9, 1969, we did not discuss this contention, because of the liberalizing effect Rule 7(c) and (d) has had on the principles enunciated in Ex parte Bain, 1886, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed. 849. We have, however, carefully reviewed the authorities on this point and conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error. See Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 459 and Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 398 F.2d 531, analyzing in detail the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bain. See also Salinger v. United States, 1926, 272 U.S. 542, 47 S.Ct. 173, 71 L.Ed. 398; 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 127 at 275-276 (1969) and 8 J.Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 7.05 [1] — [3] (1969 Cum.Supp.).

¶8It is ordered that the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same are hereby denied.