United States v. Hill
| Decision Date | 02 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2308. Summary Calendar.,72-2308. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 468 F.2d 899 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joyce Arlena HILL, a/k/a Marion Kirk, a/k/a Janet Davenport, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles C. Whitener, Dallas, Tex., Court-appointed, Jonathan K. Golden, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Eldon B. Mahon, U. S. Atty., John G. Truelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of having transported and caused to be transported in interstate commerce a falsely made and forged bank check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Her contention on appeal is that since there was no proof that she personally transported in interstate commerce the check in question there was no federally cognizable offense and the Court was without jurisdiction to convict.
Appellant's contention is without merit. The law is well settled that the interstate commerce requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 is satisfied when a person knowingly cashes a fraudulent check in one state drawn on a bank in another state. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954); Rickey v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 583; Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 820; United States v. Webb, 5 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 308. This is exactly what the Government proved—appellant knowingly cashed a forged check in Texas, which check had been drawn on a bank in Tennessee.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Franks
...that he 'caused' the interstate transportation of explosive devices. 'Cause,' of course, has a broad meaning. See United States v. Hill,468 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Boone, 460 F.2d 1285 (4th Cir. 1972). As long as one puts in motion forces resulting in the interstate trans......
-
U.S. v. Goudy, s. 85-1646
...States v. Brown, 605 F.2d 389, 393 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Newson, 531 F.2d 979, 981 (10th Cir.1976); United States v. Hill, 468 F.2d 899, 899 (5th Cir.1972); United States v. Webb, 443 F.2d 308, 310 (5th Cir.1971); Amer v. United States, 367 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir.1966). Deliverin......
-
United States v. Roby
...have to travel in interstate commerce." Carlton v. United States, 391 F.2d 684, 685, n. 1 (8th Cir. 1968). See United States v. Hill, 468 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1972); Devine v. United States, 403 F.2d 93 (10th Cir. 1968); Halfen v. United States, 324 F.2d 52 (10th Cir. 1963). Sufficient circum......
-
U.S. v. White, 74-3281
...9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954); United States v. Sheridan, 329 U.S. 379, 391, 67 S.Ct. 332, 91 L.Ed. 359 (1946); United States v. Hill, 5 Cir. 1972, 468 F.2d 899; United States v. Webb, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 308, 310; Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 256 F.2d 820, 822; Rickey v. ......