Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Conklin v. Cozart

158 F.2d 676

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-12-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant’s brief makes some statements not supported by the record. We cannot go outside the record for the facts. The only contention advanced by the petition for habeas corpus is that the tenth count of the indictment under which he is now imprisoned does not charge any offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 73. The count *677clearly states that the defendant wilfully and falsely forged and counterfeited the indorsement of the payee on a check, in words “S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Conklin v. Cozart. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
CONKLIN v. COZART,158 F.2d 676(5th Cir. 1946)
CONKLIN v. COZART, Warden.
No. 11594.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 10, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; William H. Atwell, Judge.

Proceeding on petition of William Conklin against Reed Cozart, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Tex., for a writ of habeas corpus. From a judgment denying the writ,63 F. Supp. 731, the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.
William Conklin, of Seagoville, Tex., for appellant, in pro. per.

Robt. B. Young, Jr., U.S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant's brief makes some statements not supported by the record. We cannot go outside the record for the facts. The only contention advanced by the petition for habeas corpus is that the tenth count of the indictment under which he is now imprisoned does not charge any offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 73. The countPage 677clearly states that the defendant wilfully and falsely forged and counterfeited the indorsement of the payee on a check, in words "S. Weinstein, Weinstein Supply per S. Weinstein," for the purpose of obtaining and receiving from the United States and their officers and agents the sum of $557.48, the check being a genuine obligation of the United States fully described and identified. It is settled that a forged indorsement on a genuine check of the United States is a forged "writing" included in Section 73. Prussian v. United States,282 U.S. 675,51 S.Ct. 223,75 L.Ed. 610; Buckner v. Aderhold, 5 Cir.,73 F.2d 255; De Maurez v. Squier, 9 Cir.,144 F.2d 564. The other allegations are in the words of the statute. The sentence is entirely regular and valid.

Judgment affirmed.Page 700