Myron L. De Mars and Ernest O. Short v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Myron L. De Mars and Ernest O. Short v. United States

254 F.2d 594, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6096

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 1958

Docket13481_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 594 (Myron L. De Mars and Ernest O. Short v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Myron L. De Mars and Ernest O. Short v. United States, 254 F.2d 594, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6096 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the the validity of the judgment and sentence of the appellant for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 703 et seq. and the Regulations published thereunder in 1955 by the Secretary of the Interior. The trial was had to a jury which returned a verdict of guilty as charged. There was substantial evidence to sustain the verdict and we find no prejudicial error in the proceedings therein. While the appellant contends that the sentence of both fine and imprisonment was unusually harsh by comparison with other cases of sim *595 ilar nature, it was within the limits fixed by the Act and we have no power to modify it. Wherefore,

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the the validity of the judgment and sentence of the appellant for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 703 et seq. and the Regulations published thereunder in 1955 by the Secretary of the Interior. The trial was had to a jury which returned a verdict of guilty as charged. There was substantial evidence to sustain the verdict and we find no prejudicial error in the proceedings therein. While the appellant contends that the sentence of both fine and imprisonment was unusually harsh by comparison with other cases of sim *595 ilar nature, it was within the limits fixed by the Act and we have no power to modify it. Wherefore,

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 594, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myron-l-de-mars-and-ernest-o-short-v-united-states-ca6-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack