Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

493 F.2d 1110

Docket No. 73-3938

United States v. Stirewalt

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-05-08

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1976

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Barnes v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1974-05-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Roland H. Hill, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Frank McCown, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

A jury convicted Stirewalt of transporting a stolen aircraft in interstate commerce,1 concealing it,2 and having a false registration number painted on it.3 On appeal his sole contention is that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.

¶2

We find his contention to be without merit. The Government's evidence showed that the aircraft was stolen from an airport in Orange County, California; that Stirewalt landed it in Tarrant County, Texas, representing himself to be Dr. Nystrom, the airplane's true owner; and that Stirewalt employed one Poplawski to paint a false registration number on the aircraft. Thus there was ample evidence to support Stirewalt's conviction on all counts. See Barnes v. United States, 1973, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380; Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.

¶3

Affirmed.

3

49 U.S.C.A. 1472(b)

/493/f2d/1110 · .json · Public domain