Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States v. Arthur Anthony Rocco, Alias Arthur Lewis

United States v. Arthur Anthony Rocco, Alias Arthur Lewis, 193 F.2d 1008 (3d Cir. 1952)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1952-02-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Following a jury verdict of guilty on eighteen counts contained in an indictment, the defendant, in the Court below, moved for judgment of acquittal or in the alternative for a new trial. The District Court in an exhaustive and well-reasoned opinion, 99 F.Supp. 746, considered and then denied the defendant’s motions. We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Marsh in his careful analysis of the defendant’s contentions in support of the denied motions and accordingly the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed upon his opinion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Arthur Anthony Rocco, Alias Arthur Lewis. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ROCCO,193 F.2d 1008(3rd Cir. 1952)
UNITED STATES of America v. Arthur Anthony ROCCO, alias Arthur Lewis,
Appellant.
No. 10569.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued January 25, 1952.
Decided February 4, 1952.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Rabe Ferguson Marsh, Judge.
Charles J. Margiotti, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Vincent M. Casey and Margiotti Casey, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Edward C. Boyle, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges, and STEWART, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury verdict of guilty on eighteen counts contained in an indictment, the defendant, in the Court below, moved for judgment of acquittal or in the alternative for a new trial. The District Court in an exhaustive and well-reasoned opinion,99 F. Supp. 746, considered and then denied the defendant's motions.

We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Marsh in his careful analysis of the defendant's contentions in support of the denied motions and accordingly the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed upon his opinion.