United States v. Donald Lavern Culbert
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donald Lavern CULBERT, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Cul-bert, 548 F.2d 1355 , and held valid the conviction of Culbert on Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371 , 98 S.Ct. 1112 , 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978). The case is again before us.
The conviction for robbery in Count 1 is reversed for the reasons set forth in our first opinion, Culbert, supra.
The conviction in Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , is affirmed.
No petition for rehearing will be entertained. The mandate will be issued and spread forthwith.
Dissent
ELY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent, doing so only because of our court’s opinion in United States v. Snell, 550 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1977). In the present case, the Supreme Court did not discuss the problem that we resolved in Snell , even though the problem was presented in the brief that Culbert filed in our court. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court’s omission is attributable to a policy that it will not meet undecided issues in a particular case unless those issues have first been openly considered by the inferior court. My tentative opinion is that my Brothers now disregard the teaching of Snell , but even if I am mistaken as to the legal point, I think it is wrong for the majority now to affirm Culbert’s conviction summarily without even a mention of Snell .
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
581 F.2d 799
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donald Lavern CULBERT, Appellant.
No. 76-1860.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 1978.
An Appeal from the United States District Court; Lloyd H. Burke, judge.
Frank O. Bell, Asst. Federal Public Defender (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Arthur F. Norton, Atty. (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before ELY, CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER 1
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Culbert, 548 F.2d 1355 , and held valid the conviction of Culbert on Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , United States v. Culbert, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 1112 , 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978). The case is again before us.
2
The conviction for robbery in Count 1 is reversed for the reasons set forth in our first opinion, Culbert, supra.
3
The conviction in Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , is affirmed.
4
No petition for rehearing will be entertained. The mandate will be issued and spread forthwith.
ELY, Circuit Judge (dissenting):
5
I respectfully dissent, doing so only because of our court's opinion in United States v. Snell, 550 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1977). In the present case, the Supreme Court did not discuss the problem that we resolved in Snell, even though the problem was presented in the brief that Culbert filed in our court. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's omission is attributable to a policy that it will not meet undecided issues in a particular case unless those issues have first been openly considered by the inferior court. My tentative opinion is that my Brothers now disregard the teaching of Snell, but even if I am mistaken as to the legal point, I think it is wrong for the majority now to affirm Culbert's conviction summarily without even a mention of Snell.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Alessandrello, Gaetano, in No. 79-2654. Appeal of Lacognata, Salvatore, in No. 79-2699
- United States v. William Fred Burns
- United States v. Michael Cataldo
- United States v. Charles Winfred Carpenter, Jr.
- United States v. Ronald Joseph Hackett, United States of America v. Ronald Joseph Hackett
Most recent
- United States v. Michael Cataldo
- United States v. William Fred Burns
- United States v. Alessandrello, Gaetano, in No. 79-2654. Appeal of Lacognata, Salvatore, in No. 79-2699
- United States v. Ronald Joseph Hackett, United States of America v. Ronald Joseph Hackett
- United States v. Charles Winfred Carpenter, Jr.
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.