Ingling v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17596.,17596. |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 302 |
| Parties | Richard INGLING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Russell R. Pratt, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst., Chief Crim. Div., Wm. Bryan Osborne, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Crim. Div., Jo Ann Dunne, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before ORR, HAMLEY and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of an indictment charging him with causing to be transported in interstate commerce a forged security in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2314 & 2311. Judgment of conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment were entered. He now seeks relief from such judgment of imprisonment by petition under 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255.
Appellant asserts that the indictment charging him with transportation of a forged security, to which charge he pleaded guilty, fails to charge a public offense, and hence the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence he is now serving. The pertinent part of the indictment reads:
"* * * defendant * * * with unlawful and fraudulent intent, caused to be transported a Phillips Petroleum Company charge invoice * * * in interstate commerce * * * which charge invoice was falsely made and forged, as the defendant then and there well knew."
The statute under which the indictment was brought reads in part:
"Whoever, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transports in interstate * * * commerce any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities, knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited; * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 18 U.S. C.A. § 2314.
Congress has undertaken to define what constitutes a security, and in 18 U.S.C.A. § 2311 we find one of the definitions to be, "any * * * evidence of indebtedness * * * or, in general, any instrument commonly known as a `security,' * * *".
Hence, if it can reasonably be said that under certain circumstances the charge invoice was an evidence of indebtedness, then the indictment charged a public offense. It may be that the charge invoice was stamped with an endorsement that all the conditions of the credit card were incorporated therein; or that within the terms of the charge invoice there is stated a credit agreement and terms; or that the invoice contains therein an underlying credit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merrill v. United States
...States v. Young (W.D.Mo., 1962), 210 F.Supp. 640. See also: Lewis v. United States (10 Cir., 1962), 301 F.2d 787; Ingling v. United States (9 Cir., 1962), 303 F.2d 302 Section 2255 The judgment and conviction is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opi......
-
United States v. Crouch
...an evidence of indebtedness, it could make no such assumption since the attack on the judgment was a collateral one. Ingling v. United States, 303 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1962); Lewis v. United States, 301 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1962), one Judge The question for decision involves the meaning of a p......
-
Beam v. United States
...v. Crouch, 224 F.Supp. 969 (D.Del., 1963). Contra we find: Lewis v. United States, 301 F.2d 787 (C.A. 10, 1962); Ingling v. United States, 303 F.2d 302 (C.A. 9, 1962); Williams v. United States, 192 F.Supp. 97 (S.D.Cal., 1961); United States v. Rhea, 199 F.Supp. 301 (W.D.Ark., 1961); United......
-
United States v. Young
...it was ruling the "narrow question" presented by the Section 2255 motion. Much the same thing must and is said about Ingling v. United States, (9th Cir., 1962) 303 F.2d 302, another appeal from a Section 2255 motion, which recently followed Lewis. 5 Amended Counts II and III are set forth i......