United States v. Becker

Second Circuit

United States v. Becker

259 F.2d 869

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 1958

DocketNo. 95, Docket 25180

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 F.2d 869 (United States v. Becker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Becker, 259 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case Judge Dawson, sitting without a jury after waiver by the defendant, found as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant willfully and knowingly neglected to produce certain of the books and papers called for by a summons served upon him by a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service. This finding is amply supported by the evidence. The detailed statement of facts in the court’s memorandum opinion belies defendant’s assertion that it disregarded defendant’s request for special findings of fact under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We also find insubstantial the other alleged errors. Accordingly defendant’s conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case Judge Dawson, sitting without a jury after waiver by the defendant, found as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant willfully and knowingly neglected to produce certain of the books and papers called for by a summons served upon him by a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service. This finding is amply supported by the evidence. The detailed statement of facts in the court’s memorandum opinion belies defendant’s assertion that it disregarded defendant’s request for special findings of fact under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We also find insubstantial the other alleged errors. Accordingly defendant’s conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 is affirmed.