From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Grossman

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 19, 1963
315 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 286, Docket 27957.

Argued March 19, 1963.

Decided March 19, 1963.

Hyman Hecker, White Plains, N.Y., for defendant-appellant.

Andrew J. Maloney, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.


We affirm in open court the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, McGohey, J. After a trial without a jury, the defendant was found guilty of engaging in wagering transactions without paying the special tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4411 and of failing to register as required by 26 U.S.C. § 4412, and was sentenced to pay a fine totalling $2,000 and a penalty of $50. 26 U.S.C. § 7262, 7203, 7272. The defendant's contentions of error at trial are without merit.

By order dated October 1, 1962, Judge McGohey denied the defendant's motion for the return of money seized by Internal Revenue Service agents at the time of his arrest. The money having been seized and being subject to forfeiture under 26 U.S.C. § 7302, and having been administratively forfeited as prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 7325, the motion for the return of the money was properly denied. 26 U.S.C. § 7327, 19 U.S.C. § 1618. See United States v. Heckinger, 163 F.2d 472 (2 Cir., 1947); United States v. One Pontiac Coupe, 298 F.2d 421 (7 Cir., 1962).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Grossman

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 19, 1963
315 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1963)
Case details for

United States v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Albert GROSSMAN, Defendant-Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 1963

Citations

315 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

United States v. Filing

It is settled that the District Court was without jurisdiction. United States v. Amore, 335 F.2d 329 (7th…

United States v. Amore

The district court therefore had no jurisdiction to enter the turnover order. United States v. Grossman, 315…