Burk v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Burk v. United States

179 F.2d 305, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2214

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1950

Docket6014_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 179 F.2d 305 (Burk v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burk v. United States, 179 F.2d 305, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2214 (4th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to set aside a judgment and sentence of imprisonment. The only point raised by the appeal is whether the indictment was sufficient in view of the fact that it merely charged the crime as having been committed within the District without specifying the county or division within which it was committed. We have examined the indictment and think it clearly sufficient, as it charges the commission of the crime within the district of the court’s jurisdiction. Lowrey v. United States, 8 Cir., 161 F.2d 30. Rule 58 and Illustrative Form 5 of Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. A. The Middle District of North Carolina is not divided into divisions either by statute or by rule of court; but, even if it were, failure to specify the division in which the crime was committed would not render the indictment void but would merely furnish ground for a motion for bill of particulars under Rule 7(f), with a motion for transfer under Rule 19 in a proper case. It is sufficient under the rules that prosecution be had within the district where the crime was committed. The only requirement where there are divisions of the district is with respect to the place of trial. See Rule 18.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to set aside a judgment and sentence of imprisonment. The only point raised by the appeal is whether the indictment was sufficient in view of the fact that it merely charged the crime as having been committed within the District without specifying the county or division within which it was committed. We have examined the indictment and think it clearly sufficient, as it charges the commission of the crime within the district of the court’s jurisdiction. Lowrey v. United States, 8 Cir., 161 F.2d 30. Rule 58 and Illustrative Form 5 of Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. A. The Middle District of North Carolina is not divided into divisions either by statute or by rule of court; but, even if it were, failure to specify the division in which the crime was committed would not render the indictment void but would merely furnish ground for a motion for bill of particulars under Rule 7(f), with a motion for transfer under Rule 19 in a proper case. It is sufficient under the rules that prosecution be had within the district where the crime was committed. The only requirement where there are divisions of the district is with respect to the place of trial. See Rule 18.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F.2d 305, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burk-v-united-states-ca4-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack