Frank Leone v. United States

First Circuit

Frank Leone v. United States

340 F.2d 317, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1965

Docket6418_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 340 F.2d 317 (Frank Leone v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Leone v. United States, 340 F.2d 317, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6868 (1st Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging failure to pay the special wagering occupational tax. 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411, 7203 and 7262. The only question saved in the district court was whether evidence that, five alleged wagers were placed with defendant by a government agent (under circumstances in no way suggesting entrapment) was insufficient to convict because of the fact that the agent, since he was to be reimbursed by the government, was not “wagering” as he was not risking any money. Defendant overlooks the fact that the government was risking its money. And cf. United States v. Bergland, 7 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 159, cert. den. sub nom. Cantrell v. United States, 375 U.S. 861, 84 S.Ct. 129, 11 L.Ed.2d 88, where the court found “gambling” even where, by his fraud, the defendant was betting on a sure thing. We might also suggest that from the fact that defendant accepted what he undoubtedly believed to be bona fidewagers from one stranger on five separate occasions, it could reasonably be inferred that he was taking routine bets-from others.

Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging failure to pay the special wagering occupational tax. 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411, 7203 and 7262. The only question saved in the district court was whether evidence that, five alleged wagers were placed with defendant by a government agent (under circumstances in no way suggesting entrapment) was insufficient to convict because of the fact that the agent, since he was to be reimbursed by the government, was not “wagering” as he was not risking any money. Defendant overlooks the fact that the government was risking its money. And cf. United States v. Bergland, 7 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 159, cert. den. sub nom. Cantrell v. United States, 375 U.S. 861, 84 S.Ct. 129, 11 L.Ed.2d 88, where the court found “gambling” even where, by his fraud, the defendant was betting on a sure thing. We might also suggest that from the fact that defendant accepted what he undoubtedly believed to be bona fidewagers from one stranger on five separate occasions, it could reasonably be inferred that he was taking routine bets-from others.

Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 317, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-leone-v-united-states-ca1-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack