Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Perry v. United States

Perry v. United States, 84 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1936)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1936-07-02
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. The evidence, and especially the receipts for money signed by the appellant, justified his conviction for receiving a larger compensation for prosecuting a pension claim than was allowed by law. The motion in arrest of judgment made the day after sentence was pronounced and based on the insufficiency of the descriptive allegations of the indictment was properly overruled. The objection, particularly after conviction and sentence, is technical. The record makes it plain that he well knew what he was charged with.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
PERRY v. UNITED STATES,84 F.2d 567(5th Cir. 1936)
PERRY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8025.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 2, 1936.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; Halsted L. Ritter, Judge.

Wallace F. Perry was convicted of receiving a larger compensation for prosecuting a pension claim than the law allowed, and he appeals.

Affirmed.
Bart A. Riley, of Miami, Fla., for appellant.Page 568

Lloyd C. Hooks and W. Sanders Gramling, Assts. U.S. Atty., both of Miami, Fla., for the United States.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The evidence, and especially the receipts for money signed by the appellant, justified his conviction for receiving a larger compensation for prosecuting a pension claim than was allowed by law. The motion in arrest of judgment made the day after sentence was pronounced and based on the insufficiency of the descriptive allegations of the indictment was properly overruled. The objection, particularly after conviction and sentence, is technical. The record makes it plain that he well knew what he was charged with. A new trial is not authorized.

Judgment affirmed.Page 602