Rising v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Rising v. United States

197 F.2d 335

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1952

Docket14019_1

StatusPublished

This text of 197 F.2d 335 (Rising 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

Rising v. United States, 197 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Indicted for, and convicted of, a violation of Section 2421, Title 18 U.S.C., transporting a woman in interstate commerce for the purpose of practicing prostitution, defendant has appealed. Here, putting forward four specifications of error, appellant insists that they are well taken, and, because they are, the judgment must be reversed.

We cannot agree. Indeed, we think it plain that, varying in degree from the inexcusably frivolous claim of point A of the first specification, that the proof fails to show that the so-called victim was a woman, to the little less frivolous one, that the woman could not, because of the claimed marriage to defendant, testify against him in the case, all of the claims of error are wanting in substance and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Indicted for, and convicted of, a violation of Section 2421, Title 18 U.S.C., transporting a woman in interstate commerce for the purpose of practicing prostitution, defendant has appealed. Here, putting forward four specifications of error, appellant insists that they are well taken, and, because they are, the judgment must be reversed.

We cannot agree. Indeed, we think it plain that, varying in degree from the inexcusably frivolous claim of point A of the first specification, that the proof fails to show that the so-called victim was a woman, to the little less frivolous one, that the woman could not, because of the claimed marriage to defendant, testify against him in the case, all of the claims of error are wanting in substance and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rising-v-united-states-ca5-1952.