United States v. Eugene Vassallo

Third Circuit

United States v. Eugene Vassallo

181 F.2d 1006

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1950

Docket10102_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 F.2d 1006 (United States v. Eugene Vassallo) 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. Eugene Vassallo, 181 F.2d 1006 (3d Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted under six counts of an information charging him with violations of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b). The defendant waived a jury trial and his case was accordingly tried by a judge of the district court without a jury. The trial judge made special findings in addition to a general finding of guilty. On this appeal the appellant urges that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the special findings made by the trial judge were inadequate and not in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rule 23(c), 18 U.S.C.A. We have carefully considered the appellant’s contentions in this regard but find them so wholly lacking in merit as to require no extended discussion. It is enough to say that the evidence was quite sufficient to support the trial judge’s special findings and that those special findings are adequate and fully support the general finding of guilty on each of the six counts in question which the trial judge made.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted under six counts of an information charging him with violations of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b). The defendant waived a jury trial and his case was accordingly tried by a judge of the district court without a jury. The trial judge made special findings in addition to a general finding of guilty. On this appeal the appellant urges that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the special findings made by the trial judge were inadequate and not in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rule 23(c), 18 U.S.C.A. We have carefully considered the appellant’s contentions in this regard but find them so wholly lacking in merit as to require no extended discussion. It is enough to say that the evidence was quite sufficient to support the trial judge’s special findings and that those special findings are adequate and fully support the general finding of guilty on each of the six counts in question which the trial judge made.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 F.2d 1006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eugene-vassallo-ca3-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack