Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

428 F.2d 970

Docket No. 28684

United States v. Dudley

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1970.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-07-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1970

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-07-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2Arthur Parker, Parker, Wilkinson & Montgomery, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

¶3Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6James Dudley, appellant herein, was charged in a single count indictment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 with receiving and concealing stolen United States postal money orders and a stolen money order issuing machine. Dudley was convicted by a jury and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appeals, and we affirm.1

¶7Dudley submits a triumvirate of reasons for reversal, all of which relate to alleged omissions in the court’s instructions to the jury. At trial Dudley did not make these objections to the charge or request instructions concerning these issues as required by Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P. We have nevertheless carefully reviewed each allegation of error raised by Dudley and find that in each case either a proper instruction was in fact given or its omission was, under the circumstances, entirely proper. Certainly, we have found nothing which could be considered “plain error” under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is

¶8Affirmed.

/428/f2d/970 · .json · Public domain