Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

462 F.2d 184

Docket No. 72-1141.

United States v. Dickson

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 6, 1972.

Decided June 13, 1972.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-06-13

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-06-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1994

7 federal appellate ·

40197219801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Warren J. Davis, Fairfax, Va., and T. Brooke Howard, Alexandria, Va., for appellant.

¶2George P. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., E. D. Va. (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief), ,for appellee.

¶3Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Walter Robert Dickson appeals his conviction for the interstate transportation of a falsely made and forged security in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Finding no error we affirm.

¶6The definition of a security in 18 U.S.C. § 2311 includes a document “transferring or assigning any right, title, or interest in or to goods, wares, and merchandise . . .’’On consideration of the briefs, record, and argument, we conclude that the district court properly ruled that this definition of a security embraced a “statement of source of title” of a motor vehicle and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment.

¶7Affirmed.

/462/f2d/184 · .json · Public domain