From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pierce

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1969
411 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1969)

Opinion

No. 26945 Summary Calendar.

May 20, 1969.

H.T. Carter, Columbus, Miss., court appointed, for appellant.

Flavis C. Pierce, pro se.

H.M. Ray, U.S. Atty., William M. Dye, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.

Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.


This appeal is from a conviction for causing to be transported in interstate commerce, with fraudulent intent, a falsely made and forged check, knowing it to be falsely made and forged. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314.

Under Rule 18 the Court has placed this case on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, pt. I; Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 714, 715, n. 2.

The refusal to grant a continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. Barnes v. United States, 374 F.2d 126 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 246, 19 L.Ed.2d 273 (1967). McShann v. United States, 38 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1930).

The court did not err in admitting the testimony of the witness Charles Leverett of admissions made to him by appellant concerning where appellant had secured checks of the type which he was charged with transporting, even though the admissions implied the checks had been stolen. Matthews v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 1371, Mar. 3, 1969; Samora v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1095.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Pierce

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1969
411 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1969)
Case details for

United States v. Pierce

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Flavis C. PIERCE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1969

Citations

411 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1969)

Citing Cases

United States v. Stephenson

We affirm. The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a…

United States v. Nakaladski

Goodman's testimony merely related appellants' own statements and actions. Any innuendo of wrongdoing raised…