U.S. v. Stewart, 222
| Decision Date | 01 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 222,222 |
| Citation | 523 F.2d 1263 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur Michael STEWART, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 75-1214. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. for the Southern District of New York (Paul J. Curran, U. S. Atty., T. Barry Kingham, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, of counsel), for appellee.
Joseph I. Stone, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before SMITH, HAYS and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Stewart was arrested on February 19, 1975 outside the drive-in office of the Eastern Savings Bank (the bank) located behind the main office of that bank in the Bronx. When arrested, Stewart was carrying two bags containing the $20,575.00 which had been stolen from the drive-in office of the bank at gunpoint, by at least two men, just one minute earlier. The arresting police officers found an unloaded gun 1 in Stewart's pocket and a pair of rubber gloves on the ground at his feet.
The Grand Jury, in a two-count indictment filed on February 28, 1975, charged the defendant in Count One with robbing the bank in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 2113(a) and 2 and in Count Two with assaulting a person and putting a person in jeopardy of his life "by the use of a dangerous weapon and device, to wit, a firearm," in the commission of the robbery charged in Count One, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2113(d) and 2. After a trial, commencing on April 28, 1975 and ending on April 30, 1975, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cooper, J.), a jury found Stewart guilty on both counts. By order dated May 22, 1975 the district court entered judgment of conviction for each of both counts and ordered Stewart's commitment as follows:
On this appeal Stewart has made numerous allegations of error by the district court which allegedly prejudiced him and rendered his trial unfair. We have carefully studied the briefs, the applicable law and the record of the proceedings below and find Stewart's contentions to be without merit and not worthy of discussion. We therefore affirm his conviction.
Although appellant's brief is silent with respect to error in his sentence, our review of the record reveals clear error here. In order to preserve for appeal convictions for violations of subsections (a) and (d) of18 U.S.C. § 2113, this Court has deemed it proper for the district court to enter simultaneous judgments of conviction under both of those subsections....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimes v. U.S.
...v. McAvoy, 574 F.2d 718, 722 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Mariani, 539 F.2d 915, 917 (2d Cir. 1976); 4 United States v. Stewart, 523 F.2d 1263, 1264 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Stewart, 513 F.2d 957, 961 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Pravato, 505 F.2d 703, 705 (2d C......
-
U.S. v. Mariani
...whether concurrent or consecutive, under subsections (a) and (d) (of 18 U.S.C. § 2113) are improper." United States v. Stewart, 523 F.2d 1263, 1264 (2 Cir. 1975) (per curiam ). See also United States v. Stewart, 513 F.2d 957 (2 Cir. 1975); United States v. Pravato, 505 F.2d 703 (2 Cir. 1974......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite, 84-3790
...they were to run concurrently with each other. See, e.g., Dowling, 633 F.2d at 668; Bradsby, 628 F.2d at 905; United States v. Stewart, 523 F.2d 1263, 1264 (2d Cir.1975). The policy followed in this circuit, however, is to leave his convictions under both sets of statutes intact. See Dowlin......