Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

444 F.2d 104

Docket No. 576-70.

United States v. Maxwell

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 8, 1971.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-06-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1971

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314

Relies on Gilbert v. California

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-06-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mark B. Thompson, III, Las Cruces, N. M. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., and John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., were with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

¶2Robert L. Eckleberry, Englewood, Colo., for defendant-appellant.

¶3Before LEWIS Chief Judge, and SETH and COFFIN*, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellant Maxwell appeals from conviction, after trial upon facts stipulated to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, of substantively violating 18 U.S.C. § 2314 by causing, with illegal and fraudulent intent, the interstate transportation of a falsely made and counterfeit security. The written stipulation upon which the case was submitted and tried admitted all the essential elements of the subject offense.

¶7Prior to the submission of the question of appellant’s guilt to the court Maxwell had been required by order of the court to furnish handwriting exemplars to the prosecution. Appellant objected to but complied with the order. This objection was purportedly preserved for appellate consideration in the later stipulation submitted to the court for trial and now constitutes the only issue presented to us. Although the answer to the question of the validity of the court’s preliminary order seems clear, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, we refuse *105to recognize this procedure to in any way present or preserve an appellate issue.

¶8The admitted facts support the judgment.

¶9Affirmed.

/444/f2d/104 · .json · Public domain