Woxberg v. United States, 18805.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Citation | 329 F.2d 284 |
Docket Number | No. 18805.,18805. |
Parties | Homer L. WOXBERG, Sr., and Wayne Franklin Dykes, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
Robert A. Neeb, Jr., Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant Woxberg.
Cooper & Nelsen, and Grant B. Cooper, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Dykes.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Criminal Section and Richard A. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief Criminal Section, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Woxberg appeals his convictions on four counts of embezzlement and conversion of union funds, charged to be in violation of Section 501(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Counts I, II, IX and X). Appellant Dykes appeals from his conviction on two counts (I and II).
Count I relates to the dissolution of a previously existing trust fund (sometimes known as a "severance fund") established by the executive board of a local union as a pension plan for its paid employees, amounting when it was dissolved to $35,178. Count II refers to a $220 payment made by the union for costs and expenses in the termination of said severance fund, including recordation fees and cost of an audit. Counts IX and X refer to $460.86 paid by the union for repairs to a Jeep automobile owned by Woxberg.
There were sixteen other counts on which one or more defendants were tried, but neither the other defendants, nor the other counts of which these defendants were acquitted, are here involved.
The union (Line Drivers Local 224 of the International Teamsters Union) came into existence in 1943 as a trusteeship, set up and controlled by the International Teamsters Union. In 1947 it operated as a local union, without trusteeship, under certain rules and regulations duly adopted. It elected a governing body of seven to an executive board. Four members of this board were the elected officers. Defendant Woxberg was the secretary-treasurer of the union (the highest officer locally); Dykes was president. This was a board with apparent autocratic power, but it apparently was what the union members wanted or, at least, settled for.
On February 28, 1954, the executive board adopted a resolution, calling for the creation of a pension fund for the paid officers and employees of the union, which included appellants.
The rules and regulations of the local did not require that minutes and resolutions of the executive board be brought to the attention of the entire membership, but such a procedure was regularly followed.
A motion to approve the creation of the pension fund was made at a general meeting; the motion was tabled until the next meeting. We quote what followed from appellants' brief:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Jones
...1965); McMillian v. United States, 399 F.2d 478 (5 Cir. 1968); Whaley v. United States, 362 F.2d 938 (9 Cir. 1966); Woxberg v. United States, 329 F.2d 284 (9 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 379 U.S. 823, 85 S.Ct. 45, 13 L.Ed.2d 33. As the Fifth Circuit recently announced in Harper v. United States, ......
-
U.S. v. Andreen
...See Colella v. United States, 360 F.2d 792 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 829, 87 S.Ct. 65, 17 L.Ed.2d 65 (1966); Woxberg v. United States, 329 F.2d 284 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 823, 85 S.Ct. 45, 13 L.Ed.2d 33 (1964). "Embezzlement" is such a term. It encompasses the fraudulen......
-
United States v. Silverman
...there was an issue as to union benefit from the expenditure, but there can be no doubt that it was unauthorized. In Woxberg v. United States, 329 F.2d 284 (9th Cir. 1964), the court affirmed one conviction because the jury could have concluded the issues of union approval and fraudulent int......
-
U.S. v. Ford
...in Andreen, the traditional terms of theft found in section 664 are to be given their accepted meaning. At 1241; see Woxberg v. United States, 329 F.2d 284 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 823, 85 S.Ct. 45, 13 L.Ed.2d 33 (1964); Colella v. United States, 360 F.2d 792 (1st Cir.), cert. den......