United States v. Armand Faugno

Third Circuit

United States v. Armand Faugno

443 F.2d 1176, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 1971

Docket19369_1

StatusPublished

This text of 443 F.2d 1176 (United States v. Armand Faugno) 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. Armand Faugno, 443 F.2d 1176, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The principal contention upon this appeal from a conviction of possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment is that the district court erroneously denied a motion to suppress certain cartons of stolen goods as unlawfully seized by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We have examined the record and conclude that it adequately supports the findings of fact incorporated in the district court’s opinion denying the motion. In the circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion we hold that the challenged seizure was lawfully incidental to a valid arrest.

We also have considered appellant’s challenges to the indictment and to the sufficiency of the evidence, as well as his several contentions concerning the admissibility of evidence and the court’s charge to the jury. In none of these matters do we find reversible error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The principal contention upon this appeal from a conviction of possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment is that the district court erroneously denied a motion to suppress certain cartons of stolen goods as unlawfully seized by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We have examined the record and conclude that it adequately supports the findings of fact incorporated in the district court’s opinion denying the motion. In the circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion we hold that the challenged seizure was lawfully incidental to a valid arrest.

We also have considered appellant’s challenges to the indictment and to the sufficiency of the evidence, as well as his several contentions concerning the admissibility of evidence and the court’s charge to the jury. In none of these matters do we find reversible error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 1176, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-armand-faugno-ca3-1971.