Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Edward Wanzer, Appellant v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 208 F.2d 45
Argued October 23, 1953 Decided November 5, 1953
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
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.
Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; Kinnison v. United States, 1946, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 312, 158 F.2d 403, certiorari denied 1947, 330 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 966, 91 L.Ed. 1281