United States v. William Hilliard Claypoole

Third Circuit

United States v. William Hilliard Claypoole

227 F.2d 752, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1955

Docket19-1170

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 F.2d 752 (United States v. William Hilliard Claypoole) 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. William Hilliard Claypoole, 227 F.2d 752, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3256 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, a postmaster, was prosecuted under two indictments. The first was filed July 14, 1953 and consisted of four counts. The second was filed March 2, 1954 and contained twenty counts. The two cases were consolidated for trial. The jury found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2 and 3 of the first indictment and on counts 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the second indictment. The defendant was sentenced to a year and a day on each eount of both indictments on which he was found guilty, all sentences to run concurrently.

There is no doubt that the defendant’s written statement plus his own testimony was sufficient to sustain his conviction on count 3 of the first indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b), because of the concealment of an invoice for return-card stamped envelopes. It is equally clear from the record that there was ample evidence to support the defendant’s conviction on count 4 of the second indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1711, because of his failure to enter a shipment of y2$ stamps in his accounts until the following quarter. Since the sentences imposed on these two counts of both indictments are to run concurrently with all the other sentences imposed, it is unnecessary to consider any questions raised in connection with the other counts. Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; Brooks v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 432, 441, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699; Marteney v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 218 F.2d 258, 261.

We have examined all points raised by the defendant, including the sufficiency of the court’s charge as to the evidence relative to the defendant’s good reputation and the effect of the exculpatory language in the statement made by the defendant. We can perceive no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, a postmaster, was prosecuted under two indictments. The first was filed July 14, 1953 and consisted of four counts. The second was filed March 2, 1954 and contained twenty counts. The two cases were consolidated for trial. The jury found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2 and 3 of the first indictment and on counts 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the second indictment. The defendant was sentenced to a year and a day on each eount of both indictments on which he was found guilty, all sentences to run concurrently.

There is no doubt that the defendant’s written statement plus his own testimony was sufficient to sustain his conviction on count 3 of the first indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b), because of the concealment of an invoice for return-card stamped envelopes. It is equally clear from the record that there was ample evidence to support the defendant’s conviction on count 4 of the second indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1711, because of his failure to enter a shipment of y2$ stamps in his accounts until the following quarter. Since the sentences imposed on these two counts of both indictments are to run concurrently with all the other sentences imposed, it is unnecessary to consider any questions raised in connection with the other counts. Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; Brooks v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 432, 441, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699; Marteney v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 218 F.2d 258, 261.

We have examined all points raised by the defendant, including the sufficiency of the court’s charge as to the evidence relative to the defendant’s good reputation and the effect of the exculpatory language in the statement made by the defendant. We can perceive no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F.2d 752, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-hilliard-claypoole-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack