RICE

v.

ELLIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. McCUE, 301 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …raised the point in the lower court, the appellants cannot now rely on the two-witness rule. In any event the rule has been held to be inapplicable to prosecutions under Section 1001. Fisher v. United States, 254 F. 2d 302 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 895, 79 S.Ct. 157, 3 L.Ed.2d 122 (1958); United States v. Killian, 246 F. 2d 77 (7th Cir. 1957); Todorow v. United States, 173 F. 2d 439 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 925, 69 S.Ct. 1169, 93 L.Ed. 1733 (1949). Even if there is a separate requirement…
• Polychronis Grammenos and Theodore Orfanides v. Lemos, 457 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …to submit to jurisdiction elsewhere and to post security for any judgment awarded there. See, e. g., Garis v. Companía Maritima San Basilio, 386 F. 2d 155 (2d Cir. 1967) ; Berendson v. Rederiaktiebolaget Volo, 257 F. 2d 136 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 895, 79 S.Ct. 156, 3 L.Ed.2d 121 (1958) ; Lambiris v. Neptune Maritime Co., App.Div., 326 N.Y.S.2d 862 (1st Dept.1971).…
• United States v. LE Pera, 443 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …transaction. Although the appellant here was convicted on multiple counts, the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently, which vitiates any error caused by multiplicity. Fisher v. United States, 254 F. 2d 302 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 895, 79 S.Ct. 157, 3 L.Ed.2d 122. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction of the defendant on both counts is affirmed.…