TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Levi Fox

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levi FOX, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Fox, 488 F.2d 1093 (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
December 17, 1973
Docket
No. 73-1888
Judges
Bell, Coleman, Per Curiam, Ro-Ney
Citations
488 F.2d 10931973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6437

Opinion — Per Curiam

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 *1094 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.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11977: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Bob Michael Smith562 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1977)
  2. State v. Panker532 P.2d 1073 (Kan. 1975)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Bob Michael Smith562 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1977)
  2. State v. Panker532 P.2d 1073 (Kan. 1975)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970) 195
United States v. Johnson, 431 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1970) 61
United States v. Sexton, 456 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1972) 43
United States v. Bendicks, 449 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1971) 16

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