United States v. Albert Amorino

Third Circuit

United States v. Albert Amorino

226 F.2d 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1955

Docket11554

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F.2d 680 (United States v. Albert Amorino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Albert Amorino, 226 F.2d 680 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Amorino, was charged with a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Sections 371 and 659, Title 18 U.S.C. Found guilty on Count 1 of the indictment, he asserts five grounds for reversal of the judgment of conviction. He alleges that the first count of the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States; that there was a failure to establish that the conspiracy involved him; that the evidence of an alleged co-conspirator was admitted against him when it should not have been; that the court erred “in refusing to consider the recantation” of this witness, and that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

An examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel convinces us that no prejudicial error was committed and that the court below properly applied the law to the facts.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Amorino, was charged with a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Sections 371 and 659, Title 18 U.S.C. Found guilty on Count 1 of the indictment, he asserts five grounds for reversal of the judgment of conviction. He alleges that the first count of the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States; that there was a failure to establish that the conspiracy involved him; that the evidence of an alleged co-conspirator was admitted against him when it should not have been; that the court erred “in refusing to consider the recantation” of this witness, and that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

An examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel convinces us that no prejudicial error was committed and that the court below properly applied the law to the facts.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-albert-amorino-ca3-1955.