United States v. Dory Auerbach, Irving Gottlieb, and David Prosser Randell

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Dory Auerbach, Irving Gottlieb, and David Prosser Randell

423 F.2d 676

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1970

Docket26343

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 676 (United States v. Dory Auerbach, Irving Gottlieb, and David Prosser Randell) 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. Dory Auerbach, Irving Gottlieb, and David Prosser Randell, 423 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before WISDOM, GEWIN, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

All of the defendants-appellants have petitioned for rehearing. One of the appellants, David P. Randeli, has reiterated his original contention that the trial court’s order dismissing portions of the indictment constituted an amendment of the indictment thereby ousting the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial. In our per curiam opinion of December 9, 1969, we did not discuss this contention, because of the liberalizing effect Rule 7(c) and (d) has had on the principles enunciated in Ex parte Bain, 1886, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed. 849. We have, however, carefully reviewed the authorities on this point and conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error. See Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 459 and Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 398 F.2d 531, analyzing in detail the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bain. See also Salinger v. United States, 1926, 272 U.S. 542, 47 S.Ct. 173, 71 L.Ed. 398; 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 127 at 275-276 (1969) and 8 J.Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 7.05 [1] — [3] (1969 Cum.Supp.).

It is ordered that the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same are hereby denied.

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

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before WISDOM, GEWIN, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

All of the defendants-appellants have petitioned for rehearing. One of the appellants, David P. Randeli, has reiterated his original contention that the trial court’s order dismissing portions of the indictment constituted an amendment of the indictment thereby ousting the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed to trial. In our per curiam opinion of December 9, 1969, we did not discuss this contention, because of the liberalizing effect Rule 7(c) and (d) has had on the principles enunciated in Ex parte Bain, 1886, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed. 849. We have, however, carefully reviewed the authorities on this point and conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error. See Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 459 and Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 398 F.2d 531, analyzing in detail the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bain. See also Salinger v. United States, 1926, 272 U.S. 542, 47 S.Ct. 173, 71 L.Ed. 398; 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 127 at 275-276 (1969) and 8 J.Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 7.05 [1] — [3] (1969 Cum.Supp.).

It is ordered that the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same are hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dory-auerbach-irving-gottlieb-and-david-prosser-randell-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack