Ippolito v. United States
Decision Date | 06 July 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 15312.,15312. |
Citation | 223 F.2d 154 |
Parties | John IPPOLITO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Wm. C. Pierce, Manuel M. Garcia, Tampa, Fla., for appellant.
James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Vernon W. Evans, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.
As the appellant states in his brief, "the sole question * * * raised * * * on this appeal is whether or not defendant had a legal right to have his case transferred for trial and disposition from the Tampa division to the Jacksonville division" of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This appeal, like Sagonias v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 146; Cagnina v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 149; Lawrence Wall v. United States, and Sing Wall v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 158, is from a conviction under 26 U.S.C.A. § 3294(c).
This prosecution was commenced in the Tampa division by a criminal information very much like the one set out in our opinion in the Cagnina case. Ippolito was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on July 15, 1953, being allowed by order 20 days to file motions. On July 31, 1953, he moved for a transfer of the trial to the Jacksonville division, on the ground that the offense, if any, was committed there because the failure to pay the tax occurred there. The court denied this motion in its order of April 23, 1954, in which it said:
The defendant waived jury trial and was tried, found guilty, and sentenced by the court to one year's imprisonment. Defendant's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment raised anew the question whether defendant had a right to the transfer of the case. These motions were denied, and this appeal followed.
We are in complete agreement with the quoted portion of the District Court's order. The District Court was further of the opinion that the offense was committed in Jacksonville; however, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the violation of § 3294(c) consisted of the failure to pay the tax in Jacksonville or the engaging in the business of accepting wagers in Tampa. As we said in the Cagnina case the decision of that question involves a difficult question of interpretation of § 3294(c).
Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
"Except as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed, but if the district consists of two or more divisions the trial shall be had in a division in which the offense was committed."
Appellant argues that the divisions of the Southern District of Florida are divisions within the purview of Rule 18, pointing out that that Rule makes no distinction between statutory divisions and others. Appellant contends also that 28 U.S.C.A. § 89, which enumerates eight cities in the Southern District where court is to be held — including Tampa and Jacksonville — read together with the reviser's note to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Kopituk
... Page 1289 ... 690 F.2d 1289 ... 95 Lab.Cas. P 13,873, 11 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1679 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Dorothy O. KOPITUK, Raymond C. Kopituk, Oscar Morales, ... ...
-
In re R-S-J-
...to common usage, some terms acquire a special technical meaning by a process of judicial construction." See also Ippolito v. United States, 223 F.2d 154, 157 (5th Cir. 1955) (concluding that "technical words are always interpreted in their technical sense unless this is inconsistent with a ......
-
In re R-S-J-
...to common usage, some terms acquire a special technical meaning by a process of judicial construction." See also Ippolito v. United States, 223 F.2d 154, 157 (5th Cir. 1955) (concluding that "technical words are always interpreted in their technical sense unless this is inconsistent with a ......
-
Sharaiha v. Hoy
...technical meaning are to be so construed. Barber v. Gonzales, 1954, 347 U.S. 637, 641, 74 S.Ct. 822, 98 L.Ed. 1009; Ippolito v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 154, 157. That which the Government points to in this case as false testimony was not oral, but written. It was uttered not i......