ROBERT DOUGLAS RAINWATER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 appellant's contention regarding the sufficiency of evidence for asportation lacked merit as a matter of law, and the district court correctly denied his motion to vacate the judgment.
Appellant was convicted of theft of U.S. property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. He did not file a direct appeal but later filed a collateral attack, arguing …
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 Asportation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence1 of a federal prisoner. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of theft of property belonging to the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. He took no direct appeal, but now collaterally attacks his conviction, contending that the government did not prove his guilt of the charge since no evidence was introduced at his trial to show that the property was actually removed from the interior of the burglarized building.
The appellant’s conception of the elements of the crime with which he was charged is erroneous. All that is required to consummate the federal offense of theft is the asportation of property belonging to the United States with the intention of converting it to one’s own use. Any appreciable change of the location of the property with felonious intent, whether there is actual removal of it from the owner’s premises or not, constitutes asportation. See United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. 1961, 285 F. 2d 528.
Since the appellant’s contention lacks merit as a matter of law, the district court was eminently correct in its refusal to review the sufficiency of the evidence against the appellant upon this collateral attack of his conviction. Weaver v. United States, 8th Cir. 1969, 418 F. 2d 475; Kelly v. United States, 5th Cir. 1965, 350 F. 2d 398; Armstead v. United States, 5th Cir. 1963, 318 F. 2d 725.
The judgment below is affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Harold, 588 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Armstead v. United States, 318 F.2d 725 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Weaver v. United States, 418 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1969)
- Kelly v. United States, 350 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Riddick Brown, 285 F.2d 528 (4th Cir. 1961)