Scott v. United States, 7617.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 7617.,7617. |
| Citation | 255 F.2d 18 |
| Parties | Carl Hargis SCOTT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert G. Cabell, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Court appointed counsel), for appellant.
Lafayette Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Greensboro, N. C. (Robert L. Gavin, U. S. Atty., Greensboro, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under an indictment charging him in two counts with transporting stolen vehicles in interstate commerce with knowledge that they had been stolen. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312.
On June 1, 1957, the appellant, Carl Hargis Scott, and Clyde Ingram obtained seven automobiles from Valley Motor Company in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, upon a check signed by the appellant in the name of S. & I. Sales, a non-existent business. The check was drawn on a bank in which neither Scott nor Ingram had an account. Among the seven vehicles were a Chevrolet and a Plymouth. On June 3, 1957, Scott drove the Plymouth and Ingram the Chevrolet to High Point, North Carolina.
The first count charged both defendants with transporting the Chevrolet, and the second count was identical to the first except that it related to the Plymouth. Each defendant was convicted on both counts, and Scott received a five-year sentence on the first count and a three-year sentence on the second, to run consecutively.
Scott advances three grounds for reversal, the first two of which are patently insubstantial. One is that Scott's motion, before trial, under Rule 21 (b), F.R. Crim.Proc. (18 U.S.C.A.), to transfer the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, should have been granted. He claimed that witnesses residing in the Eastern District of Kentucky could prove that he paid cash for the vehicles described in the indictment, but that he was financially unable to provide transportation for the witnesses. The Court denied the motion but directed the United States Attorney to issue subpoenas for three witnesses to be named by Scott. Scott named three; two were served and testified at the trial; the third witness, Scott's wife, could not be found at the address given by Scott, was not served and did not appear.
The question of transfer under Rule 21(b) was, as the Government contends, within the Court's discretion, and its action can be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. Younge v. United States, 4 Cir., 1917, 242 F. 788; Kott v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 984, certiorari denied 333 U.S. 837, 68 S.Ct. 609, 92 L.Ed. 1122. We find no abuse here.
Secondly, the appellant urges that the vehicles were not "stolen" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 2312. While, at one time, the circuits were in conflict as to whether stolen included the crime of "false pretenses," the Fourth Circuit was among those holding that it did. Boone v. United States, 4 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 939. The conflict was resolved, however, in United States v. Turley, 1957, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed. 2d 430, where the view held by this court was adopted.
Scott's remaining point is that as he drove only one of the cars, he could not be guilty of transporting the other. The answer is that one need not drive a vehicle to transport it. It is sufficient that the appellant was a principal and co-captain of the enterprise. United States v. Antrobus, 3 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 969, 972, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 902, 72 S.Ct. 637, 96 L.Ed. 1321; Barfield v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 936. The record here clearly indicates the appellant's interest in procuring the transportation of both vehicles, which were part of the fruits of the bogus checks he issued.
When forbidden conduct is extended in duration or elaborate in its phases, it is not always easy to determine the proper unit for purposes of prosecution. In some instances each day's action or inaction is made a separate offense; in others a longer course of action constitutes a single offense. See: In re Snow, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Espinoza
...Rule 21(b) is within the court's discretion, and its action can be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. Scott v. United States, 255 F.2d 18 (4th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 942, 78 S.Ct. 1392, 2 L.Ed.2d 1555 Under the circumstances here, we find no abuse of discretion by th......
-
U.S. v. Morris
... Page 483 ... 612 F.2d 483 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... L. D. MORRIS, ... ...
-
Schwab v. United States
...its force fully negated by the Turley decision. Thirdly, although Boone has since been cited by the Fourth Circuit, Scott v. United States, 255 F.2d 18, 20 (4 Cir. 1958), cert. denied 357 U.S. 942, 78 S.Ct. 1392, 2 L.Ed.2d 1555; Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4 Cir. 1958); and ......
-
Jones v. Gasch
...& Mfg. Co., supra note 26, 376 U.S. at 244-45, 84 S.Ct. 769. 53 Application of Cohen, supra note 49, 332 F.2d at 977; Scott v. United States, 255 F.2d 18, 20 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 357 U.S. 942, 78 S.Ct. 1392, 2 L.Ed.2d 1555 (1958); Kott v. United States, 163 F.2d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1947)......