Lowden v. United States, 12658.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | Lowden v. United States, 187 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1951) |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 12658.,12658. |
| Parties | LOWDEN v. UNITED STATES. |
Leroy L. Lomax, Portland, Or., for appellant.
Henry L. Hess, U. S. Atty., Floyd D. Hamilton and John R. Brooke, Asst. U. S. Attys., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, POPE, Circuit Judge, and GOODMAN, District Judge.
The judgment on the first count of the indictment is affirmed, the instrument proved falsely to have been made by the appellant being an order for the purpose of enabling a person to obtain from an officer of the United States the sum of $592.00 in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 495.
It is unnecessary to consider the contention of error in the judgment on the second count of the indictment, since it is for the same term of imprisonment and to run concurrently with the first count. Danziger v. United States, 9 Cir., 161 F.2d 299, 301.
Judgment...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cohen v. United States
...is free from error. Ex parte Cohen, 9 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 300; Brandon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 175; Lowden v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 484; Danziger v. United States, 9 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 299, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 769, 68 S.Ct. 81, 92 L.Ed. 354.3 Where......
-
Ex parte Cohen
...is necessary that as to each there is shown such a substantial question. Danziger v. United States, 9 Cir., 161 F.2d 299; Lowden v. United States, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 484. Count Six of the indictment charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, providing that any person making a false statement in......