United States v. Lloyd, 27414 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 27414 Summary Calendar.,27414 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 425 F.2d 711 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James W. LLOYD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sam R. Wilson, McPhail, Wilson & Gee, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from appellant's conviction after a jury trial of conspiracy to make, possess, pass and cause to be made, possessed and passed certain counterfeit twenty dollar ($20.00) federal reserve notes.1
Appellant Lloyd raises nine specifications of error to support a reversal. After a careful study of the entire record in its bearing upon these numerous contentions, we conclude that they are completely lacking in substance. Accordingly, the conviction must stand.
Three of appellant's specifications of error pertain to the credibility of the corroborating testimony of a prosecution witness and the trial court's conduct with respect to the taking of such testimony. The issue of credibility was one for the jury, and we are convinced that any possible error on the part of the trial judge was indeed harmless.
An additional three points of error are devoted to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the charges of the indictment. It is contended that the government charged appellant with a single conspiracy while the evidence produced by the government showed two or more conspiracies. This contention is without merit. A single agreement to commit an offense, or even a number of offenses, does not become several conspiracies because the activity continues over a period of time. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 63 S. Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed.2d 23 (1942). The distinguishing factor is that a single conspiracy has a common end or single unified purpose. United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583, 593 (2nd Cir., 1952). In the present case, the "common end" was the passing of a large quantity of counterfeit bills over a period of time.
Appellant's seventh contention is that the trial judge erred when he considered the report of a presentence investigation without permitting appellant to inspect the same. This contention has no merit because presentence reports are not available to a defendant as a matter of right. The disclosure of the contents of a presentence report to a defendant is a matter of discretion with the court. The restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to the conduct of a trial are inapplicable to the imposition of a sentence. See Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), and United States v. Durham, 181 F.Supp. 503 (D.C.1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 83, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (1960).
It is further alleged by appellant that error occurred because the conspiracy count...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bally Manufacturing Corporation
...a number of offenses, does not become several conspiracies because the activity continues over a period of time." United States v. Lloyd, 425 F.2d 711, 712 (5th Cir. 1970); accord United States v. Nasse, 432 F.2d 1293, 1297 (7th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, the defendants' motions urging dismis......
-
U.S. v. Richerson
...(5th Cir.1972) (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 775, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).14 United States v. Lloyd, 425 F.2d 711, 712 (5th Cir.1970).15 Perez, 489 F.2d at 62-63.16 United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F.2d 1342, 1348 (5th Cir.1975).17 United States v. Beck......
-
United States v. Best, Crim. A. No. 5640.
...unified purpose. No extraneous matter constituting unrelated allegations is found. The indictment satisfies the test of United States v. Lloyd, 425 F.2d 711 (5 Cir. 1970) and fairly notifies the defendants of the charges against Movants further aver the converse; that is, that the indictmen......
-
U.S. v. Elliott
...agreement has "a common end or single unified purpose". United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 170-71 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Lloyd, 425 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1970). Generally, where the government has shown that a number of otherwise diverse activities were performed to achieve a si......