UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LEVI FOX, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 conviction for transporting and concealing stolen vehicles in interstate commerce was supported by overwhelming evidence and that no reversible trial errors occurred.
The appellant was convicted of knowingly transporting and concealing five stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The fact that the cars were st…
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 Miranda Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted the appellant, Levi Fox, in ten counts of knowingly transporting five stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce and of knowingly receiving and concealing five stolen motor vehicles which were moving as interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C., §§ 2312, 2313. The stolen vehicles were four Cadillacs and one Buick. He was sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate of six years, with five years probation. We affirm.
That the cars were stolen and that they were transported in interstate commerce from Michigan to Mobile is not disputed. The evidence from which the jury could infer guilty knowledge was overwhelming. Consequently, the appellate issues are hopefully centered upon asserted trial errors.
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument we see no reversible error. The brief questions asked of Fox when he first arrived in Mobile did not impinge upon his Miranda, rights, United States v. Montos, 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F. 2d 215.
The identification of the stolen automobiles by an examination of the public and confidential identification numbers was accomplished in a constitutionally permissible manner, United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F. 2d 441 (en banc) and numerous Fifth Circuit cases subsequently decided on the authority of Johnson.
The District Court correctly retired the jury for further deliberation when a poll revealed that one juror was not certain of her verdict, Rule 31(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. Sexton, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F. 2d 961; United States v. Bendicks, 5 Cir., 1971, 449 F. 2d 313. The juror was not required to deliberate and vote in open court.
The instructions to the jury, assessed as a whole, were not reversibly erroneous.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Smith, 562 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Johnson, 431 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Bendicks, 449 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1971)