Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Robert Lewis Banzer v. United States

367 F.2d 865

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-01-09
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the judgment' imposed following appellant’s conviction by jury verdict of the six offenses charged in the indictment, all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Inasmuch as no error affecting the substantial rights of appellant appears in connection with his conviction on the second count of the indictment [Fed.R. Crim.P. 52(a)], and the sentences on all counts were imposed to commence and run concurrently, we need not reach the point of decision as to the remaining five counts. [See: United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 138, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed. 2d 210 (1965) ; United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 65, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); Lawn v.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
2 opinions
BANZER v. UNITED STATES,367 F.2d 865(9th Cir. 1966)
Robert Lewis BANZER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 18, 1966.
Certiorari Denied January 9, 1967.
See 87 S.Ct. 715.
Page 866
Stanley J. Mitchell, Mitchell O'Leary, Oregon City, Or., for appellant.

Sidney I. Lezak, U.S. Atty., Norman Sepenuk, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the judgment imposed following appellant's conviction by jury verdict of the six offenses charged in the indictment, all violations of18 U.S.C. § 2314.

Inasmuch as no error affecting the substantial rights of appellant appears in connection with his conviction on the second count of the indictment [Fed.R. Crim.P. 52(a)], and the sentences on all counts were imposed to commence and run concurrently, we need not reach the point of decision as to the remaining five counts. [See: United States v. Romano,382 U.S. 136, 138, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed. 2d 210 (1965); United States v. Gainey,380 U.S. 63, 65, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); Lawn v. United States,355 U.S. 339, 359, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958); Emspak v. United States,349 U.S. 190, 195, 75 S.Ct. 687, 99 L.Ed. 997 (1955); Hirabayashi v. United States,320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); Sinclair v. United States,279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929).]

Affirmed.