Robert F. Smith and J. B. Smith v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert F. Smith and J. B. Smith v. United States

340 F.2d 126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 1965

Docket21261_1

StatusPublished

This text of 340 F.2d 126 (Robert F. Smith and J. B. Smith 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

Robert F. Smith and J. B. Smith v. United States, 340 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon a jury’s verdict the def endants-appellants were convicted of conspiring to make false statements to the Veterans Administration in violation of sections 371 and 1001 of Title 18, United States Code. Robert F. Smith was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and J. B. Smith to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal some complaint is made as to the court’s charge to the jury, but there were no objections to the charge as required by Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.Proc., and *127 we find no plain error. Rule 52. The only other error urged is the refusal to direct a judgment of acquittal of each of the defendants. An examination of the five-hundred page record and the numerous exhibits discloses that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of guilty as to each of the defendants. The judgments are therefore

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon a jury’s verdict the def endants-appellants were convicted of conspiring to make false statements to the Veterans Administration in violation of sections 371 and 1001 of Title 18, United States Code. Robert F. Smith was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and J. B. Smith to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal some complaint is made as to the court’s charge to the jury, but there were no objections to the charge as required by Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.Proc., and *127 we find no plain error. Rule 52. The only other error urged is the refusal to direct a judgment of acquittal of each of the defendants. An examination of the five-hundred page record and the numerous exhibits discloses that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of guilty as to each of the defendants. The judgments are therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-f-smith-and-j-b-smith-v-united-states-ca5-1965.