UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JERRY JEROME ROCHKIND, 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 carrier's compliance with Interstate Commerce Commission licensing requirements is irrelevant to a charge of receiving goods stolen from interstate commerce.
The defendant was convicted of receiving stolen china that had been transported in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the carrier transpor…
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.
PER CURIAM:
Rochkind appeals his conviction on two counts of receiving goods which had been stolen from interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. We affirm.
In December, 1977, a tractor-trailer carrying china bound from Ohio to New Jersey was stolen while stopped in Baltimore, Maryland. The stolen china was stored in Page Van & Storage, Rochkind’s employer, which company was owned by Rochkind’s wife. Rochkind sold some of the china so stored to an undercover state police officer. Later that month another tractor-trailer of china was similarly stolen, and stored, and Rochkind attempted a sale thereof which was not completed.
Rochkind claims several grounds for reversal, the principal being that the district court erred in not allowing him to show that the china itself was traveling in violation of federal law. He claims that the carrier had not complied with the Interstate Commerce Commission’s licensing requirements thus affecting the district court’s jurisdiction. The district court held the question of whether the carrier was properly licensed by the ICC to be irrelevant. We agree. The statute Rochkind is charged under deals with goods in interstate commerce. The china here was clearly in interstate commerce, and the carrier’s status with respect to its license is not relevant. Nassif v. U. S., 370 F. 2d 147 (8th Cir. 1966).
We have examined the remainder of Rochkind’s contentions and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is