United States v. Paul J. Sartori, Doing Business as Johnnie Lee Realty

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Paul J. Sartori, Doing Business as Johnnie Lee Realty

443 F.2d 373

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 1971

Docket26934

StatusPublished

This text of 443 F.2d 373 (United States v. Paul J. Sartori, Doing Business as Johnnie Lee Realty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Paul J. Sartori, Doing Business as Johnnie Lee Realty, 443 F.2d 373 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The sole question on this appeal is this: does the record contain evidence sufficient to prove that appellant Sartori wilfully caused to be submitted to the Veterans Administration the false documents which comprised part of an application for the approval of a “G.I. Loan.”

The answer is yes. Evidence was adduced at the trial tending to show that Sartori, like the appellant in Turner v. United States, 202 F.2d 523, 524-525 (9th Cir. 1970), “was the planner, the instigator, and the intended beneficiary of the entire scheme. * * * ” Hence, the trier of fact could logically infer that Sartori came within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which makes culpable as a principal a person who acts vicariously.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The sole question on this appeal is this: does the record contain evidence sufficient to prove that appellant Sartori wilfully caused to be submitted to the Veterans Administration the false documents which comprised part of an application for the approval of a “G.I. Loan.”

The answer is yes. Evidence was adduced at the trial tending to show that Sartori, like the appellant in Turner v. United States, 202 F.2d 523, 524-525 (9th Cir. 1970), “was the planner, the instigator, and the intended beneficiary of the entire scheme. * * * ” Hence, the trier of fact could logically infer that Sartori came within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which makes culpable as a principal a person who acts vicariously.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-paul-j-sartori-doing-business-as-johnnie-lee-realty-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack