U.S. v. Stovall, 86-1453
| Decision Date | 24 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1453,86-1453 |
| Citation | 833 F.2d 526 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don STOVALL and Robert Harlon "Frosty" Winter, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John H. Hagler, Dallas, Tex., for Stovall.
Robert H. Winter, pro se.
Henry D. Gabriel, Loyola Law School, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), for Winter.
Joseph C. Wyderko, Washington, D.C., Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for the U.S.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Jerry Buchmeyer, Judge.
Prior Report: 825 F.2d 817.
Before WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and MENTZ *, District Judge. **
IT IS ORDERED that references to the special assessment under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3013 appearing in the court's opinion in this case are DELETED as irrelevant to the decision.
At the conclusion in Part III A of our opinion in this case, we indicated that Ray v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987), did not apply, and the concurrent sentence doctrine made it unnecessary to review the convictions on several of the counts. Our conclusion was that the $50 special assessment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3013, had not been ordered although mandated by that section. Government counsel has pointed out to us that Sec. 3013 was enacted after the offenses charged in this case occurred. Therefore, the special assessments called for in that section could not have been imposed.
* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
** Due to his death on October 19, 1987, Judge Hill did not participate in this order which is issued by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. 46(d).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Corona
...of sentences ... can be raised for the first time on appeal." United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir.), amended, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir.1987). When multiple punishments are at issue, our inquiry focuses on whether Congress intended for the defendant's actions to be subject to t......
-
U.S. v. Evans
...multiple criminal sanctions for a single act." United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir.), modified in other respects, 833 F.2d 526 (1987). We believe that Congress has done so here for essentially two reasons. First, the statute itself expressly identifies two classes of items ......
-
U.S. v. Shunk
...United States v. Tullos, 868 F.2d 689, 693-94 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 822 (5th Cir.), amended, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir.1987). Therefore, under the reasoning of Gaudin, the refusal to give the Shunks' proposed jury instruction on materiality deprived them of the......
-
US v. Hilliard, Crim. No. 92-CR-387.
...financial institutions are accurate and truthful." U.S. v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 823 (5th Cir.1987), modified on other grounds, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir.1987). In contrast, the purpose of the misapplication prohibition under § 657 is "to protect federally-insured financial institutions from l......
-
Review Proceedings
...(vacated, unreviewed conviction can be reinstated if interests of justice require, making it available for appellate review), amended by 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987); Rutledge v. U.S., 230 F.3d 1041, 1049 (7th Cir. 2000) (vacated conviction can be reinstated without remand because defendant......
-
CHAPTER 6 CHARGING DECISIONS
...123, supra at § 145.[148] See, e.g., U.S. v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir. 1987) (collecting cases), modified on other grounds, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987).[149] See § 13.02, infra (discussing unanimous verdict rules).[150] 1A Wright et al., Note 123, supra, at § 145.[151] See gener......