United States v. Joseph Romeo Duck

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Joseph Romeo Duck

423 F.2d 1200, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1970

Docket14015

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 1200 (United States v. Joseph Romeo Duck) 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. Joseph Romeo Duck, 423 F.2d 1200, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10211 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

With commendable candor, defendant concedes that the sole issue presented for review is whether the testimony of a *1201 handwriting expert, standing alone, was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for forging an endorsement upon a United States Treasurer’s check. Our own examination of the record corroborates defendant’s characterization. Defendant does not dispute, as urged by the government in a motion for summary affirmance, that the point was decided adversely to defendant in United States v. Acosta, 369 F.2d 41 (4 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967), but defendant asks us to reconsider that decision. This we decline to do and, there being no other issue to warrant the preparation of a brief on behalf of the government and the scheduling of argument, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

With commendable candor, defendant concedes that the sole issue presented for review is whether the testimony of a *1201 handwriting expert, standing alone, was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for forging an endorsement upon a United States Treasurer’s check. Our own examination of the record corroborates defendant’s characterization. Defendant does not dispute, as urged by the government in a motion for summary affirmance, that the point was decided adversely to defendant in United States v. Acosta, 369 F.2d 41 (4 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967), but defendant asks us to reconsider that decision. This we decline to do and, there being no other issue to warrant the preparation of a brief on behalf of the government and the scheduling of argument, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 1200, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-romeo-duck-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack