Long v. United States, 8200.
| Citation | 90 F.2d 482 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 8200.,8200. |
| Parties | LONG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
George F. Macdonald, of Phœnix, Ariz., and Chauncey Tramutolo, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
F. E. Flynn, U. S. Atty., and George E. Wood, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Phœnix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted on July 6, 1935, in an indictment containing two counts for violations of the Harrison Narcotic Act (26 U.S.C.A. §§ 692, 696, see 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1043, 1044 (a) (c-g). He was convicted on the first count and acquitted on the second count on February 29, 1936, and sentenced on March 4th. On March 6, 1936, he filed notice of appeal with the trial court. A duplicate of this notice was filed with the clerk of this court on May 13, 1936.
Appellee has moved this court to strike out the bill of exceptions and the assignment of errors.
On April 9, 1936, the time to settle the bill of exceptions was extended to May 11, 1936. On May 8, June 3, July 13, August 27, September 30, and October 20, orders were made purporting to extend the time to settle the bill of exceptions. These orders were without legal effect because beyond the jurisdiction of the court. On November 9th an order was entered settling the bill of exceptions. On the same date the judge signed the certificate to the bill of exceptions reciting that "the said bill of exceptions was duly proposed and duly and regularly filed with the clerk of said court, and thereafter duly and regularly served within the time authorized by law; and that no amendments were proposed to said bill of exceptions except such as are embodied therein; that due and regular notice of time for settling and certifying the said bill of exceptions was given and the same is hereby approved, settled and allowed and is hereby made a part of the record in this cause."
Assignments of error were served and filed October 27, 1926.
The time for filing the bill of exceptions expired within thirty days after taking the appeal (Criminal Appeals Rule 9 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a) unless within that period additional time was allowed. It follows that the bill of exceptions not having been settled within the time fixed by rule of the Supreme Court, the District Judge was without authority to settle the bill. Ray v. United States, 57 S.Ct. 700, 81 L.Ed. ___, filed April 26, 1937; St. Charles v. United States (C. C.A.) 86 F.(2d) 463; Cary v. United States (C.C.A.) 86 F.(2d) 461.
The time for filing the assignment of errors, according to Criminal Appeals Rule 9, is the same as that for settling the bill of exceptions. The rule provides in that regard as follows:
"Within the same time, the appellant shall file with the clerk of the trial court an assignment of the errors of which appellant complains."
It follows that the assignments of error were also filed too late.
Appellant contends in his assignment of error No. 5 that the judgment pronounced upon a verdict of guilty on the first count of the indictment was wholly inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty on the second count "in that, as appears from the indictment and the instructions of the court, each of the alleged offenses in counts one and two was based on an alleged single transaction, namely, one sale of one bottle of morphine to one person at the same time and place." This question arises on the face of the indictment and verdict. Consistency in a verdict is not necessary. Dunn v. U. S., 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356, 80 A.L.R. 161; Id. (C.C.A.) 50 F.(2d) 779, 781; Yep v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 637.
In view of the fact that this court has supervisory control over the settlement of a bill of exceptions and the preparation of record in criminal appeals (Criminal Appeals Rule 4 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a; Ray v. U. S., supra), we called upon the clerk of the District Court to certify the orders of extension, and our statement concerning these extensions is based upon this certificate.
We have held that a bill of exceptions should show on its face that it was settled within the term and time fixed by law U. S. v. Payne (C.C.A.) 72 F.(2d) 593; U. S. v. Paul (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 132; Welch v. St. Helens Petroleum Co. 78 F.(2d) 631 and that this may be shown in the certificate of the trial judge approving and settling the bill U. S. v. Paul, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tudor v. United States
...United States, 302 U.S. 220, 58 S.Ct. 180, 82 L.Ed. 209; Kay v. United States, 303 U.S. 1, 9, 58 S.Ct. 468, 82 L.Ed. 607; Long v. United States, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 482; Reiner v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 321; Noland v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 820; Ross v. United States, 9 Cir., 10......
-
Conway v. United States
...United States, 302 U.S. 220, 58 S.Ct. 180, 82 L.Ed. 209; Kay v. United States, 303 U.S. 1, 9, 58 S.Ct. 468, 82 L.Ed. 607; Long v. United States, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 482; Reiner v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 321; Noland v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 820; Ross v. United States, 9 Cir., 10......
-
McElheny v. United States, 10690.
...80 A. L.R. 161; Macklin v. United States, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 756, 758; Maugeri v. United States, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 199, 201; Long v. United States, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 482, 484. 8 Lueders v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F. 419, 421; Andrews v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F. 418, 419; Linder v. United S......
-
Collins v. Streitz
...631; United States v. Alcorn, 1935, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 487; E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. Andersen, 1936, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 161; Long v. United States, 1937, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 482. The recital in the certificate attached to the bill considered in U. S. v. Alcorn, supra, was almost identical with that f......