Holbrook v. United States, No. 15061.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtHUTCHESON, , and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit
Citation216 F.2d 238
Docket NumberNo. 15061.
Decision Date08 February 1955
PartiesJ. L. HOLBROOK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

216 F.2d 238 (1954)

J. L. HOLBROOK, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15061.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 29, 1954.

Rehearing Denied February 8, 1955.


A. C. Wheeler, Gainesville, Ga., J. Hugh Rogers, Atlanta, Ga., Wheeler, Robinson & Thurmond, Gainesville, Ga., for appellant.

James W. Dorsey, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.

216 F.2d 239

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

Charged in a one count indictment with knowingly and wilfully attempting to defeat and evade income taxes due and owing by him "by filing and causing to be filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue Collection District of Georgia at Atlanta, Georgia, a false and fraudulent income tax return" for the calendar year 1945, and found guilty, defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $1500 and to imprisonment for a year and a day.

Appealing from the judgment and sentence, defendant is here pressing upon us two claims of error.

The first attacks the prosecution in the Atlanta instead of the Gainesville division of the district on two grounds: (a) that the Atlanta division of the court was without jurisdiction to proceed in this cause because the offense, if any, was committed in the Gainesville division; and (b) that the court erred in denying defendant's motion, under Rule 21(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., to transfer the case to that division.

Conceding that Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772 holds directly contrary to ground (a), that the court was without jurisdiction to try this cause in the Atlanta division, appellant insists that Rule 18, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure1 is inconsistent therewith and now governs.

Without pointing to any case dealing directly with the question he presents, he urges that the established general principle, that the trial of crimes shall be held in the state and district where they have been committed, requires the ruling here that, since everything that was done by the defendant in this case occurred in the Gainesville division, he should have been prosecuted there.

Invoking the statutory provision, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3237, providing that "Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed", appellant insists that when the defendant "procured Oliver to make his tax return, signed it and mailed it at Cumming, if he was guilty of a crime it was then complete, even had it never been received by the Internal Revenue Collector."

While we find ourselves in general agreement with this view,2 we are also in no doubt that since the return...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Burrell, No. 73-3826
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 30, 1974
    ...348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); United States v. Tunnell, 481 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1973); Holbrook v. United States, 216 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249 (1955). Thus in this case, Burrell's 1968 tax evasion conviction may......
  • Reynolds v. United States, No. 15284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1955
    ...of the United States. Cf. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 474, 30 S.Ct. 249, 54 L.Ed. 569. In Holbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 238, 239, it was alleged that the attempt to evade was "`by filing and causing to be filed * * * a false and fraudulent income tax return'" and, ......
  • U.S. v. Marchant, No. 85-1191
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 4, 1985
    ...States v. Gross, 276 F.2d 816, 818 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 831, 80 S.Ct. 1602, 4 L.Ed.2d 1525 (1960); Holbrook v. United States, 216 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249 (1955); United States v. United States District Court, 209 F.2......
  • Escobar v. United States, No. 23529.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 22, 1968
    ...equals net income for the partnership. Bostwick v. United States, 5 Cir. 1955, 218 F.2d 790, 794; Holbrook v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 216 F.2d 238, cert. denied 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249. The bank account used in the computation was the partnership's trust account in whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • U.S. v. Burrell, No. 73-3826
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 30, 1974
    ...348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); United States v. Tunnell, 481 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1973); Holbrook v. United States, 216 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249 (1955). Thus in this case, Burrell's 1968 tax evasion conviction may......
  • Reynolds v. United States, No. 15284.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 29, 1955
    ...of the United States. Cf. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 474, 30 S.Ct. 249, 54 L.Ed. 569. In Holbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 238, 239, it was alleged that the attempt to evade was "`by filing and causing to be filed * * * a false and fraudulent income tax return'" and, ......
  • U.S. v. Marchant, No. 85-1191
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 4, 1985
    ...States v. Gross, 276 F.2d 816, 818 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 831, 80 S.Ct. 1602, 4 L.Ed.2d 1525 (1960); Holbrook v. United States, 216 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249 (1955); United States v. United States District Court, 209 F.2......
  • Escobar v. United States, No. 23529.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 22, 1968
    ...equals net income for the partnership. Bostwick v. United States, 5 Cir. 1955, 218 F.2d 790, 794; Holbrook v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 216 F.2d 238, cert. denied 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 605, 99 L.Ed. 1249. The bank account used in the computation was the partnership's trust account in whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT