United States v. James Ray Jones

Fourth Circuit

United States v. James Ray Jones

421 F.2d 841, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10949

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1970

Docket13862

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 841 (United States v. James Ray Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. James Ray Jones, 421 F.2d 841, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10949 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

*842 PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 for knowingly transporting across interstate boundaries stolen R. T. French food products of a value in excess of $5,000. The only significant issue raised on this appeal is whether the jurisdictional amount was established. Value is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2311 as “market value.”

LI, 2] The goods were stolen while being delivered by French to its customers. The only evidence of market value introduced was the invoices for the stolen goods which showed a price of $5,071.10. This was the price agreed upon by the buyers and seller of these goods and as such is competent evidence of market value. United States v. Pal-umbo, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 607, cited with approval in United States v. Tippett, 4 Cir., 353 F.2d 335, 338 n. 2. The invoice also showed a two per cent discount which was offered French’s distributors as a bonus for payment within ten days. This discount, available only if earned by the distributor, like an interest or penalty charge for late payment, does not alter the value of the goods themselves.

Accordingly, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

*842 PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 for knowingly transporting across interstate boundaries stolen R. T. French food products of a value in excess of $5,000. The only significant issue raised on this appeal is whether the jurisdictional amount was established. Value is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2311 as “market value.”

LI, 2] The goods were stolen while being delivered by French to its customers. The only evidence of market value introduced was the invoices for the stolen goods which showed a price of $5,071.10. This was the price agreed upon by the buyers and seller of these goods and as such is competent evidence of market value. United States v. Pal-umbo, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 607, cited with approval in United States v. Tippett, 4 Cir., 353 F.2d 335, 338 n. 2. The invoice also showed a two per cent discount which was offered French’s distributors as a bonus for payment within ten days. This discount, available only if earned by the distributor, like an interest or penalty charge for late payment, does not alter the value of the goods themselves.

Accordingly, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 F.2d 841, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-ray-jones-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack