United States v. William Taylor Stirewalt, Iii, No. 73-3938 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I

493 F.2d 1110
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 1974
Docket1110
StatusPublished

This text of 493 F.2d 1110 (United States v. William Taylor Stirewalt, Iii, No. 73-3938 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 Taylor Stirewalt, Iii, No. 73-3938 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I, 493 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1974).

Opinion

493 F.2d 1110

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Taylor STIREWALT, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-3938 Summary Calendar. *
*Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,
431 F.2d 409, Part. I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 1974.

Roland H. Hill, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Frank McCown, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Stirewalt of transporting a stolen aircraft in interstate commerce,1 concealing it,2 and having a false registration number painted on it.3 On appeal his sole contention is that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.

We find his contention to be without merit. The Government's evidence showed that the aircraft was stolen from an airport in Orange County, California; that Stirewalt landed it in Tarrant County, Texas, representing himself to be Dr. Nystrom, the airplane's true owner; and that Stirewalt employed one Poplawski to paint a false registration number on the aircraft. Thus there was ample evidence to support Stirewalt's conviction on all counts. See Barnes v. United States, 1973, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380; Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.

Affirmed.

1

18 U.S.C.A. 2312

2

18 U.S.C.A. 2313

3

49 U.S.C.A. 1472(b)

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

Related

Glasser v. United States
315 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Barnes v. United States
412 U.S. 837 (Supreme Court, 1973)
United States v. Stirewalt
493 F.2d 1110 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
493 F.2d 1110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-taylor-stirewalt-iii-no-73-3938-summary-ca5-1974.