United States v. Franco, 27026 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 27026 Summary Calendar.,27026 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 413 F.2d 282 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard Kanner, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Edward F. Boardman, U.S.Atty., Tampa, Fla., Kendell W. Wherry, Asst.U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied October 13, 1969. See 90 S.Ct. 95.
Appellant was convicted by the court under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 of causing the transportation in interstate commerce of falsely made and forged securities with unlawful and fraudulent intent, knowing the same to have been falsely made and forged. The essential facts can be stated with brevity: On April 12, 1967, two wooden boxes containing 42,000 blank American Express traveler's checks worth $620,000 were stolen in New York City; about four weeks later, appellant passed five of these checks at an Oldsmobile agency in Orlando, Florida. He assigns four errors on appeal from his conviction, but we find none of them persuasive.1
The $10 traveler's checks passed by Mr. Franco at the Oldsmobile agency bore the signature of Victor Duarte as purchaser and the counter signature of Victor Duarte. Appellant's first point is that a stolen blank traveler's check later filled in by someone is not a forged security within the meaning of the statute. We held otherwise in Castle v. United States, 5th Cir. 1961, 287 F.2d 657, 660. His second and related point is that there was no evidence to show that the signature and counter signature of Victor Duarte were forged and hence no evidence to show that he was in possession of a forged security. As indicated by Castle v. United States and also Berry v. United States, 5th Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 775, a stolen blank traveler's check becomes a forged security when someone fills in the signature spaces even if he uses his own signature. This is because a traveler's check is cashed on the credit of the issuer. Since American Express had never issued these traveler's checks to anyone, the first person to fill them in, even if he used his own signature, necessarily created forged securities and the first negotiator of the forged securities was necessarily a forger.
Thirdly, appellant complains of the testimony of a service station manager to the effect that he cashed additional checks not charged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Johnson
...of any such falsification is not dispositive. See United States v. Law, 435 F.2d 1264, 1265-1266 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Franco, 413 F.2d 282, 283 (5th Cir. 1969). 6 See also United States v. Nelson, 273 F.2d 459, 461-462 (7th Cir. 1960). 7 The question is whether Johnson, when he......
-
United States v. Roby
...§ 2314. Gearing v. United States, 432 F.2d 1038, 1041 (5th Cir. 1970) (appendix of district court opinion). See also United States v. Franco, 413 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1969). 4 The Regiscope is a camera used in commercial establishments to photograph customers and commercial paper for later 5 ......
-
State v. Rovin
...771; United States v. Smith, 426 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1970); cert. denied 400 U.S. 868, 91 S.Ct. 110, 27 L.Ed.2d 107; United States v. Franco, 413 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 836, 90 S.Ct. 95, 24 L.Ed.2d 87; United States v. Hamilton, 322 F.Supp. 1315 (D.C.1971), aff'd 3 ......
-
United States v. Jones, Crim. No. W-75-0854.
...denied 414 U.S. 839, 856, 94 S.Ct. 90, 160, 38 L.Ed.2d 75, 106; United States v. Brown, 417 F.2d 1068 (5 Cir. 1969); United States v. Franco, 413 F.2d 282 (5 Cir. 1969), and Ketchum v. United States, 327 F.Supp. 768 (D.Md.1971). Such a scheme would ordinarily constitute forgery, even though......