CHARLES EDWARD NORTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.
Appellant was convicted of assault by force and violence to take property. He appeals the sentence imposed after the jury verdict, questioning the suf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Calendar Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of assault by force and violence to take the property of another, in violation of Section 2113(b), Title 18, United States Code. He now appeals from the sentence imposed after the jury verdict.
Although appellant failed to specify any alleged errors of the trial Court below, his argument and authority seem to question whether there was sufficient evidence presented by the Government to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.1
We have carefully reviewed the record as presented and conclude that the evidence of the Government agents, together with the victim’s testimony was sufficiently competent, substantial and relevant to support the verdict. Gilstrap v. United States (5 Cir., 1968) 389 F. 2d 6; Moody v. United States (5 Cir., 1967) 377 F. 2d 175.
Affirmed.
. Under Rule 18 the Court has placed this case on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 714, n. 2.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moody v. United States, 377 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Gilstrap v. United States, 389 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Jackson C. Floyd v. Resor, 409 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1969)