TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James E. Williams

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Williams, 474 F.2d 1047 (5th Cir. 1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 2, 1973
Docket
No. 72-3119
Judges
Wisdom, Ainsworth, Clark
Citations
474 F.2d 10471973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11351

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

James E. Williams was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 under an indictment alleging a conspiracy (a) to defraud the United States Government by stealing, forging, and negotiating United States Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and (b) to steal state welfare checks from the United States mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . Williams contends on appeal that the government failed to prove either that the conspirators stole and forged Treasury checks or that the state welfare checks which were cashed were stolen from the mails.

To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 , the prosecution must demonstrate an unlawful agreement and at least one independent act in furtherance of the agreement. It need not show that the conspirators committed the substantive crime which is charged in the indictment as the object of the conspiracy. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 334 , 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1084 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356, 1384 (1957). Nor is it necessary to substantiate each of the overt acts al *1048 leged in the indictment. Bradford v. United States, 413 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969).

Assuming arguendo that the evidence in the present case was insufficient to establish the specific violations of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and 18 U.S.C. § 1708 alleged in the indictment, it was amply sufficient to establish both the conspiracy alleged and numerous overt acts in furtherance of that unlawful agreement.

The appellant’s conviction is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11976: 11978: 21980: 11983: 119742026peak 1978 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Peter Adamo Appeal of Vincent Kearney534 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1976)
  2. United States v. Simms508 F. Supp. 1188 (W.D. La. 1980)
  3. United States v. Collier14 M.J. 377 (1983)
  4. State v. Hinton529 P.2d 843 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)
  5. Barrasso v. Commissioner1978 T.C. Memo. 432
  6. State v. Taylor583 P.2d 1033 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Collier14 M.J. 377 (1983)
  2. United States v. Simms508 F. Supp. 1188 (W.D. La. 1980)
  3. Barrasso v. Commissioner1978 T.C. Memo. 432
  4. State v. Taylor583 P.2d 1033 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. United States v. Peter Adamo Appeal of Vincent Kearney534 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1976)
  6. State v. Hinton529 P.2d 843 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) 1,011
Luther James Bradford v. United States of Am., Johnny Paul Washam v. United States, 413 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969) 54

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list