United States v. Carrol Edward Sanders and Sally Lee Clasen

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Carrol Edward Sanders and Sally Lee Clasen

538 F.2d 695, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7153

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1976

Docket76-1574

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 538 F.2d 695 (United States v. Carrol Edward Sanders and Sally Lee Clasen) 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. Carrol Edward Sanders and Sally Lee Clasen, 538 F.2d 695, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7153 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Both of the appellants were convicted for Dyer Act violations under both counts of a two count indictment charging them in Count One with transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, 1 and in Count Two with concealing the same stolen motor vehicle. 2 Appellants were sentenced to concurrent three-year terms on each count. Their sole contentions on this appeal challenge only their convictions under Count Two. 3 Appellants do not challenge their convictions under Count One.

It is well settled that the transportation offense codified in Section 2312 is a separate and distinct offense from the concealment transgression codified in Section 2313, even though the same vehicle is involved in both crimes. Woody v. United States, 258 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1957), aff’d, 359 U.S. 118, 79 S.Ct. 721, 3 L.Ed.2d 673 (1959) (by equally divided court); United States v. Marvel, 493 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 496 F.2d 1170 (1974); United States v. Ploof, 464 F.2d 116, 119-20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 952, 93 S.Ct. 298, 34 L.Ed.2d 224 (1972) (several cases cited); United States v. Thompson, 422 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (6th Cir. 1970), aff’d after remand, 442 F.2d 1333 (6th Cir. 1971); see United *696 States v. Rice, 428 F.2d 923,925-26 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, since appellants were sentenced concurrently under Count II (the concealment count), and do not challenge their convictions under Count I (the transportation count), pursuant to the concurrent sentence doctrine we need not and do not reach the merits of their attack on Count II. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 848 & n. 16, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Works, 526 F.2d 940, 948 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.

1

. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2312.

2

. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2313.

3

. They assert that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction and that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions.

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

PER CURIAM:

Both of the appellants were convicted for Dyer Act violations under both counts of a two count indictment charging them in Count One with transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, 1 and in Count Two with concealing the same stolen motor vehicle. 2 Appellants were sentenced to concurrent three-year terms on each count. Their sole contentions on this appeal challenge only their convictions under Count Two. 3 Appellants do not challenge their convictions under Count One.

It is well settled that the transportation offense codified in Section 2312 is a separate and distinct offense from the concealment transgression codified in Section 2313, even though the same vehicle is involved in both crimes. Woody v. United States, 258 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1957), aff’d, 359 U.S. 118, 79 S.Ct. 721, 3 L.Ed.2d 673 (1959) (by equally divided court); United States v. Marvel, 493 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 496 F.2d 1170 (1974); United States v. Ploof, 464 F.2d 116, 119-20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 952, 93 S.Ct. 298, 34 L.Ed.2d 224 (1972) (several cases cited); United States v. Thompson, 422 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (6th Cir. 1970), aff’d after remand, 442 F.2d 1333 (6th Cir. 1971); see United *696 States v. Rice, 428 F.2d 923,925-26 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, since appellants were sentenced concurrently under Count II (the concealment count), and do not challenge their convictions under Count I (the transportation count), pursuant to the concurrent sentence doctrine we need not and do not reach the merits of their attack on Count II. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 848 & n. 16, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Works, 526 F.2d 940, 948 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.

1

. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2312.

2

. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2313.

3

. They assert that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction and that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 F.2d 695, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carrol-edward-sanders-and-sally-lee-clasen-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack