United States v. Arthur Roy Freeman, A/K/A Lawrence Kenneth Freeman

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Arthur Roy Freeman, A/K/A Lawrence Kenneth Freeman

427 F.2d 140, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8946

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1970

Docket28698

StatusPublished

This text of 427 F.2d 140 (United States v. Arthur Roy Freeman, A/K/A Lawrence Kenneth Freeman) 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

United States v. Arthur Roy Freeman, A/K/A Lawrence Kenneth Freeman, 427 F.2d 140, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8946 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a Dyer Act conviction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. 1 The evidence was more than ample to support the jury verdict of guilty. There was no error in the charge to the jury nor in the refusal to charge. See Orser v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 580, 582, on the charge, and United States v. Sutton, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 405, 406, on the elements of the offense.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a Dyer Act conviction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. 1 The evidence was more than ample to support the jury verdict of guilty. There was no error in the charge to the jury nor in the refusal to charge. See Orser v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 580, 582, on the charge, and United States v. Sutton, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 405, 406, on the elements of the offense.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F.2d 140, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arthur-roy-freeman-aka-lawrence-kenneth-freeman-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack