United States v. Humberto Dumenigo

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Humberto Dumenigo

444 F.2d 253, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9320

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1971

Docket30333

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 444 F.2d 253 (United States v. Humberto Dumenigo) 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. Humberto Dumenigo, 444 F.2d 253, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9320 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Humberto Dumenigo, was charged in a three count indictment with transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. A jury verdict of guilty was returned on all three counts, and defendant was sentenced to a term of one year on each count, said sentences to run concurrently.

Defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict on any of the three counts. We have examined the record carefully as to count one and find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. As a matter of judicial convenience under the concurrent sentence doctrine, we preter-mit any discussion of the evidential sufficiency concerning counts two and three. See United States v. Varner, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 1195; United States v. Bigham, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 1344; United States v. Barsaloux, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1299.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Humberto Dumenigo, was charged in a three count indictment with transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. A jury verdict of guilty was returned on all three counts, and defendant was sentenced to a term of one year on each count, said sentences to run concurrently.

Defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict on any of the three counts. We have examined the record carefully as to count one and find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. As a matter of judicial convenience under the concurrent sentence doctrine, we preter-mit any discussion of the evidential sufficiency concerning counts two and three. See United States v. Varner, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 1195; United States v. Bigham, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 1344; United States v. Barsaloux, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1299.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F.2d 253, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-humberto-dumenigo-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack