Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States v. Lowrey

172 F.2d 226

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-01-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In the Court below, the appellant was convicted of violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 [now §§ 2311-2313], and his motion for a new trial was denied. We think the decision should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the Opinion of the District Judge. 1948, 77 F.Supp. 301. The appellant suggests that he has “after discovered evidence.” Since this point does not appear to have been asserted on the motion for new trial, we do not here undertake to consider it, but the appellant should be free to address a motion to the District Court on that ground pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 33, 18 U.S.C.A. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed, and the cause remanded to its jurisdiction in accordance herewith.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Lowrey. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. LOWREY,172 F.2d 226(3rd Cir. 1949)
UNITED STATES of America v. James Edgar LOWREY, Appellant.
No. 9727.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted December 21, 1948.
Decided January 27, 1949.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Frederick V. Follmer, Judge.
Appellant in pro. per.

Owen M. Burns, U.S. Atty., and Edward C. Boyle, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before MARIS, GOODRICH, and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In the Court below, the appellant was convicted of violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 [now §§ 2311-2313], and his motion for a new trial was denied. We think the decision should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the Opinion of the District Judge. 1948,77 F. Supp. 301.

The appellant suggests that he has "after discovered evidence." Since this point does not appear to have been asserted on the motion for new trial, we do not here undertake to consider it, but the appellant should be free to address a motion to the District Court on that ground pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 33, 18 U.S.C.A.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed, and the cause remanded to its jurisdiction in accordance herewith.