Wanzer v. United States, 11584.

Decision Date05 November 1953
Docket NumberNo. 11584.,11584.
CitationWanzer v. United States, 208 F.2d 45, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 412 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
PartiesEdward WANZER, appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard and William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Attys., at time record was filed, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in a jury trial on two counts of an indictment.Sentences were imposed on each count to run concurrently.We find no merit in appellant's objection to the trial court's refusal to direct acquittal on the first count charging promotion of a numbers game in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 1501(1951).Hence we need not consider appellant's objection to the conviction on the second count charging possession of numbers slips in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1502(1951) since the sentence imposed for conviction on that count is less than the sentence imposed on the first count.1

Affirmed.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
13 cases
  • U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 23, 2003
    ... 274 F.Supp.2d 10 ... UNITED STATES ex rel. Tod N. ROCKEFELLER, Plaintiff, ... WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC ... ...
  • Tillotson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 14, 1956
    ...on any count where the sentence did not exceed that which might properly have been imposed on that count. Wanzer v. United States, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 412, 208 F.2d 45; Abrams v. United States, 1919, 250 U.S. 616, 619, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. What we have said disposes of the case and rende......
  • Greene v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1959
    ...sentences themselves. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, (1375) 87 L.Ed. 1774; Wanzer v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 412, 208 F.2d 45.' It thereupon affirmed, one judge dissenting, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 246 F.2d 677. Petitioner sought certiorari on the grounds ......
  • Robinson v. United States, 11681.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 28, 1954
    ...438, 56 S.Ct. 532, 80 L.Ed. 778; Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; Wanzer v. United States, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 208 F.2d 45. The exhibits do not refer to the acts charged in counts 11 and 12, on which the court imposed concurrent sentences ......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT