Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Humberto Dumenigo

United States v. Humberto Dumenigo, 444 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-06-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The defendant, Humberto Dumenigo, was charged in a three count indictment with transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. A jury verdict of guilty was returned on all three counts, and defendant was sentenced to a term of one year on each count, said sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict on any of the three counts. We have examined the record carefully as to count one and find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. As a matter of judicial convenience under the concurrent sentence doctrine, we preter-mit any discussion of the evidential sufficiency concerning counts two and three.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
10 opinions
UNITED STATES v. DUMENIGO,444 F.2d 253(5th Cir. 1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto DUMENIGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 30333 Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 1971.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Joe Eaton, District Judge.
Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Michael J. Osman, Charles O. Farrar, Jr., Miami, Fla., Asst. U.S. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG, and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The defendant, Humberto Dumenigo, was charged in a three count indictment with transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce in violation of18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. A jury verdict of guilty was returned on all three counts, and defendant was sentenced to a term of one year on each count, said sentences to run concurrently.

Defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict on any of the three counts. We have examined the record carefully as to count one and find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. As a matter of judicial convenience under the concurrent sentence doctrine, we pretermit any discussion of the evidential sufficiency concerning counts two and three.SeeUnited States v. Varner, 5 Cir. 1971,437 F.2d 1195; United States v. Bigham, 5 Cir. 1970,421 F.2d 1344; United States v. Barsaloux, 5 Cir. 1969,419 F.2d 1299.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 253
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩