United States v. Horace J. Parisi

Third Circuit

United States v. Horace J. Parisi

368 F.2d 988, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 7, 1966

Docket15608_1

StatusPublished

This text of 368 F.2d 988 (United States v. Horace J. Parisi) 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. Horace J. Parisi, 368 F.2d 988, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of a ten count indictment alleging the fraudulent sale of securities and use of the mails in connection with a fraudulent scheme. In addition to the errors alleged to have been committed by the district court in its charge and limitation of cross examination, which we considered in his co-defendant’s appeal, United States v. Casavina, 368 F.2d 987 (C.A.3, 1966) (filed today), he raises two further points.

In the first point, he urges that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find no merit in this contention. There is ample evidence in the record to indicate that appellant *989 had a close and intimate tie with Casavan Industries and its operation, that he solicited prospective purchasers of stock, and that he participated in a scheme to avoid an injunction prohibiting the sale of stock in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. Moreover, the evidence relating to the fraudulent sale of stock to Donald W. Kentler (a transaction for which he was not indicted) is clearly indicative of both intent and participation in the scheme. See Robinson v. United States, 366 F.2d 575 (C.A.10, Sept. 20, 1966).

We find appellant’s remaining argument — that the jury verdict was an obvious compromise — to be completely without merit.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of a ten count indictment alleging the fraudulent sale of securities and use of the mails in connection with a fraudulent scheme. In addition to the errors alleged to have been committed by the district court in its charge and limitation of cross examination, which we considered in his co-defendant’s appeal, United States v. Casavina, 368 F.2d 987 (C.A.3, 1966) (filed today), he raises two further points.

In the first point, he urges that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find no merit in this contention. There is ample evidence in the record to indicate that appellant *989 had a close and intimate tie with Casavan Industries and its operation, that he solicited prospective purchasers of stock, and that he participated in a scheme to avoid an injunction prohibiting the sale of stock in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. Moreover, the evidence relating to the fraudulent sale of stock to Donald W. Kentler (a transaction for which he was not indicted) is clearly indicative of both intent and participation in the scheme. See Robinson v. United States, 366 F.2d 575 (C.A.10, Sept. 20, 1966).

We find appellant’s remaining argument — that the jury verdict was an obvious compromise — to be completely without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 988, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-horace-j-parisi-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack