United States v. Jerry Jerome Rochkind

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Jerry Jerome Rochkind

679 F.2d 18

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1982

Docket81-5003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 679 F.2d 18 (United States v. Jerry Jerome Rochkind) 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. Jerry Jerome Rochkind, 679 F.2d 18 (4th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Rochkind appeals his conviction on two counts of receiving goods which had been stolen from interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. We affirm.

In December, 1977, a tractor-trailer carrying china bound from Ohio to New Jersey was stolen while stopped in Baltimore, Maryland. The stolen china was stored in Page Van & Storage, Rochkind’s employer, which company was owned by Rochkind’s wife. Rochkind sold some of the china so stored to an undercover state police officer. Later that month another tractor-trailer of china was similarly stolen, and stored, and Rochkind attempted a sale thereof which was not completed.

Rochkind claims several grounds for reversal, the principal being that the district court erred in not allowing him to show that the china itself was traveling in violation of federal law. He claims that the carrier had not complied with the Interstate Commerce Commission’s licensing requirements thus affecting the district court’s jurisdiction. The district court held the question of whether the carrier was properly licensed by the ICC to be irrelevant. We agree. The statute Rochkind is charged under deals with goods in interstate commerce. The china here was clearly in interstate commerce, and the carrier’s status with respect to its license is not relevant. Nassif v. U. S., 370 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1966).

We have examined the remainder of Rochkind’s contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Rochkind appeals his conviction on two counts of receiving goods which had been stolen from interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. We affirm.

In December, 1977, a tractor-trailer carrying china bound from Ohio to New Jersey was stolen while stopped in Baltimore, Maryland. The stolen china was stored in Page Van & Storage, Rochkind’s employer, which company was owned by Rochkind’s wife. Rochkind sold some of the china so stored to an undercover state police officer. Later that month another tractor-trailer of china was similarly stolen, and stored, and Rochkind attempted a sale thereof which was not completed.

Rochkind claims several grounds for reversal, the principal being that the district court erred in not allowing him to show that the china itself was traveling in violation of federal law. He claims that the carrier had not complied with the Interstate Commerce Commission’s licensing requirements thus affecting the district court’s jurisdiction. The district court held the question of whether the carrier was properly licensed by the ICC to be irrelevant. We agree. The statute Rochkind is charged under deals with goods in interstate commerce. The china here was clearly in interstate commerce, and the carrier’s status with respect to its license is not relevant. Nassif v. U. S., 370 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1966).

We have examined the remainder of Rochkind’s contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 F.2d 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jerry-jerome-rochkind-ca4-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack