Irven Green v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Irven Green v. United States

332 F.2d 788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 1964

Docket20919_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 788 (Irven Green v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irven Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence in this moonshine conspiracy case are affirmed. The contention that no act of the appellant was proved within the statutory period of six years is not controlling since there was ample evidence of appellant’s connection with the conspiracy less than a month before the critical date of February 1, 1957, and there was no evidence to show that his connection with it had ended prior to the occasion of the overt acts which occurred within the statutory period. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489.

There is no merit in the contention while charged with participation in a single conspiracy dealing with separate stills, the proof showed two separate conspiracies. There were several distinct threads running through the actions of the parties m connection with all of the stills and this was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question whether there wag sin le conspiracy embracing all four stills.

The judgment is affirmed,

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence in this moonshine conspiracy case are affirmed. The contention that no act of the appellant was proved within the statutory period of six years is not controlling since there was ample evidence of appellant’s connection with the conspiracy less than a month before the critical date of February 1, 1957, and there was no evidence to show that his connection with it had ended prior to the occasion of the overt acts which occurred within the statutory period. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489.

There is no merit in the contention while charged with participation in a single conspiracy dealing with separate stills, the proof showed two separate conspiracies. There were several distinct threads running through the actions of the parties m connection with all of the stills and this was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question whether there wag sin le conspiracy embracing all four stills.

The judgment is affirmed,

United States v. John Varelli, Roy Nielsen and Emil Crovedi, United States of America v. Max Heckmyer, United States of America v. Morris Saletko, United States of America v. Kenneth Bratko and Joseph Rossi, United States of America v. John Anthony Borsellino, United States of America v. Thomas Daniel Bambulas and Albert Cardenas, United States of America v. Anthony Legato, Frank Gallo, and Ernest Infelice

407 F.2d 735 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)

United States v. Varelli

407 F.2d 735 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irven-green-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack