U.S. v. Glidden, 82-1401
| Decision Date | 13 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1401,82-1401 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Todd Richard GLIDDEN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Carolyn P. Short, Asst. Federal Defender, D. Minn., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
James M. Rosenbaum, U. S. Atty., Deborah Kleinman McNeil, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Minn., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIES, * Senior District Judge.
Todd R. Glidden appeals his conviction on three counts of bank robbery, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). In his sole assignment of error, Glidden contends the government did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the savings institutions involved were federally insured.
Federally insured status is an essential element of a violation under § 2113(a) and must therefore be established by the government. Scruggs v. United States, 450 F.2d 359, 361 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1071, 92 S.Ct. 1521, 31 L.Ed.2d 804 (1972). Two separate savings institutions, the Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association and the Marquette State Bank, were involved in the robberies with which Glidden was charged. At trial, the government introduced federal certificates of insurance for both financial institutions. An officer from each establishment testified that each institution's deposits are federally insured. Like the district court, we believe this evidence, "while falling short of the ideal," United States v. Glidden, 528 F.Supp. 699, 702 (D.Minn.1981), was sufficient to support a finding that both institutions were federally insured at the time in question. See United States v. Clemons, 532 F.2d 122, 123 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam); United States v. Merrill, 484 F.2d 168, 169-70 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1077, 94 S.Ct. 594, 38 L.Ed.2d 484 (1973); Scruggs v. United States, 450 F.2d at 361; see also United States v. Safley, 408 F.2d 603, 605 (4th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
* The Honorable Ronald N. Davies, United States Senior District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mentz
...470 U.S. 1058, 105 S.Ct. 1772, 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); United States v. Taylor, 728 F.2d 930, 933 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Glidden, 688 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1982) ("Federally insured status is an essential element of a violation under Sec. 2113(a) and must therefore be established by......
-
Sutton v. United States, Case No. 1:05-CR-183-1
...United States v. Wingard, 522 F.2d 796, 797 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1058 (1978); United States v. Glidden, 688 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), a guilty plea, where there is no assertion that the plea was involuntary or made with a lack of understanding......
-
U.S. v. Stoddard
...or reserve membership is an essential element of a Sec. 656 violation and must be established by the government. See United States v. Glidden, 688 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1982) (making similar statement regarding federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a) for bank robbery). In the indict......
-
U.S. v. Mays, 86-1726
...of a bank is an essential element that must be proved to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a) and (d). United States v. Glidden, 688 F.2d 58 (8th Cir.1982); Scruggs v. United States, 450 F.2d 359 (8th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1071, 92 S.Ct. 1521, 31 L.Ed.2d 804 (1972).......