United States v. Tino Barzie, William Irving and Cornelius Steenbakker

433 F.2d 984, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6687
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 1970
Docket34760_1
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 433 F.2d 984 (United States v. Tino Barzie, William Irving and Cornelius Steenbakker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Tino Barzie, William Irving and Cornelius Steenbakker, 433 F.2d 984, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6687 (2d Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the convictions by a jury of Tino Barzie, William Irving and Cornelius Steenbakker in the Southern District, for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and 21 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341 and 1342.

There is no substance to Steenbakker’s claim of double jeopardy by reason of his plea of guilty to a different indictment charging a separate conspiracy, which conviction we affirmed in open court on August 12, 1970. His five-year sentence on the present conviction was imposed to run concurrently with a five-year sentence imposed by Judge Motley in the other case. So far as the indictments indicate, the conspiracies were separate and involved different people. The mere fact that Steenbakker and two other persons were charged with being members of both conspiracies and that both conspiracies involved dealing in stolen credit cards is far from establishing any claim of double jeopardy. Likewise the fact that the periods of time when the conspiracies were operating overlap to some extent is by itself no proof that Steenbakker was charged twice for the same offense. Steenbakker was afforded every opportunity by the trial judge to submit proof on this question, even after the jury verdict in this case. He failed to submit any proof, and it is abundantly clear that there is no merit to his claim.

The other contentions of the appellants have been examined; they do not merit discussion.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Patrick Defillipo and James Defillipo
590 F.2d 1228 (Second Circuit, 1979)
United States v. George Lawson and Ronald Scharf
545 F.2d 557 (Seventh Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Benjamin Mallah
503 F.2d 971 (Second Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Burnie McCall
489 F.2d 359 (Second Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Amato
367 F. Supp. 547 (S.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. George Nathan
476 F.2d 456 (Second Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Richard Buonomo
441 F.2d 922 (Seventh Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
433 F.2d 984, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tino-barzie-william-irving-and-cornelius-steenbakker-ca2-1970.