United States v. Jack

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Stella

    448 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    We need not consider the allegedly erroneous rulings; they do not affect the conviction on the possession counts. United States v. Jack, 1971, 9 Cir., 439 F.2d 879. Hatfield presents a multitude of arguments, the most serious of which concerns an interpretation of the National Firearms Act. He argues that he could not "possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record," § 5861(d), without first having had the firearm "transferred" to him as that term is defined in the Act, which defines a "transfer" as including "selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of."

  2. United States v. Asteguieta-Luna

    449 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1971)

    There was shown no prejudice from the delay between the offenses and arrest, and we dismiss this assignment of error under Wilson v. United States, 409 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct. 2146, 23 L. Ed.2d 771 (1969), in which there had been a seven-month delay. The remaining issue need not be considered, appellant having received concurrent sentences on all counts. United States v. Lucero, 443 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1971). The decision of the district court is affirmed and the mandate will issue forthwith.

  3. United States v. Jones

    446 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    Inasmuch as the sentences were for the same period of time and made to run concurrently, we need sustain the validity of only one conviction to affirm the judgment. United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. McKinney, 433 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1970); Johnson v. United States, 427 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1970); and United States v. Wong, 425 F.2d 1077 (9th Cir. 1970). Consequently, we shall examine only the judgment of conviction on the third count.

  4. United States v. Washabaugh

    442 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that informing the jury of a codefendant's guilty plea entered after most of the evidence was presented at a joint trial was not erroneous because the statement was unadorned and accurate, and the jury was instructed not to consider the plea in determining the guilt or innocence of the remaining defendants; and acknowledging, “given the close identification of the defendants with one another . . . and the lateness in the trial, it might have been better simply to tell the jury that [the codefendant who pleaded guilty ] was to be considered no longer a defendant in the case and that his guilt or innocence should play no part in future deliberations.”

    Also, the sentences were concurrent. Thus, we need not necessarily find more than one robbery count good as to each defendant-appellant. See Benton v. Maryland (1969), 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707; Hirabayashi v. United States, (1943) 320 U.S. 81, 63 S. Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir., Feb. 24, 1971); United States v. McKinney, 433 F.2d 921 (9th Cir., Nov. 16, 1970). We affirm both judgments of conviction.

  5. United States v. Privett

    443 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 15 times
    In United States v. Privett, 443 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1971), for example, the Finth Circuit upheld a convictiof on three separate counts relating to the defendant's possession of heroin in a shirt pocket, under the front seat of his vehicle, and in the trunk of his vehicle.

    In any event under the concurrent sentence doctrine of Hirabayashi v. United States, (1943) 320 U.S. 81, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774, as a matter of judicial convenience, we are not required to examine the validity of more than one of the counts. Accord, United States v. Jack, (9 Cir. 1971), 439 F.2d 879. V. The Sale of Cocaine Charged in Count I Was a Completed Sale.

  6. United States v. Lucero

    443 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    The concurrent sentences rule makes examination of this assignment of error unnecessary. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1971). There is no merit to the contention that the introduction of this evidence "contaminated" the entire trial.