United States v. Pinto

Third Circuit

United States v. Pinto

673 F.2d 74, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12431

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1981

DocketNo. 80-2420

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 673 F.2d 74 (United States v. Pinto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Pinto, 673 F.2d 74, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12431 (3d Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDI-SERT, ADAMS, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing, 3 Cir., 646 F.2d 833, filed by Appellee in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Circuit Judge ADAMS votes for rehearing. He believes that the result reached by the opinion represents a crabbed and unrealistic interpretation of § 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), and is also at variance with the interpretation set forth by the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Circuits. The panel here specifically determined that the defendant did, in fact, take the excess money with the intent to steal or purloin it, but then proceeded to conclude that a “fraud type” stealing or purloining is not encompassed by § 2113(b). Nothing in the legislative history of the statute demonstrates that Congress sought to exclude “fraud type” stealing.

The petition for rehearing suggests that in 1979 the Federal Reserve System alone handled approximately 35,000,000 interbank transactions. 66th Annual Report, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 300, 323 Table 9. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of these transactions were processed without error. But, as the present case illustrates, errors sometimes occur. The interpretation reached by the panel would exclude from coverage of § 2113(b) an individual’s knowing exploitation of errors arising in connection with interbank transfers, to the detriment of the banking system and the public generally.

Circuit Judge GARTH also votes for rehearing and joins Circuit Judge ADAMS’ statement.

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

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDI-SERT, ADAMS, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing, 3 Cir., 646 F.2d 833, filed by Appellee in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Circuit Judge ADAMS votes for rehearing. He believes that the result reached by the opinion represents a crabbed and unrealistic interpretation of § 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), and is also at variance with the interpretation set forth by the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Circuits. The panel here specifically determined that the defendant did, in fact, take the excess money with the intent to steal or purloin it, but then proceeded to conclude that a “fraud type” stealing or purloining is not encompassed by § 2113(b). Nothing in the legislative history of the statute demonstrates that Congress sought to exclude “fraud type” stealing.

The petition for rehearing suggests that in 1979 the Federal Reserve System alone handled approximately 35,000,000 interbank transactions. 66th Annual Report, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 300, 323 Table 9. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of these transactions were processed without error. But, as the present case illustrates, errors sometimes occur. The interpretation reached by the panel would exclude from coverage of § 2113(b) an individual’s knowing exploitation of errors arising in connection with interbank transfers, to the detriment of the banking system and the public generally.

Circuit Judge GARTH also votes for rehearing and joins Circuit Judge ADAMS’ statement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F.2d 74, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pinto-ca3-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack