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
Bruce Eugene January, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 409 F.2d 31
March 19, 1969
Ralph Keen, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
James R. Gough, William B. Butler, Fred L. Hartman, Frank C. Cooksey, Asst. U.S. Attys., Morton L. Susman, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Randolph W. Thrower, James R. Paulk, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., amici curiae.
Before TUTTLE and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and PITTMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Eugene January was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under an indictment which charged that, on two separate occasions, he transported a woman from Texas to Louisiana for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2421 (1964). We affirm the conviction.
The appellant contends that the court's charge was erroneous, that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. His chief complaint relates to the court's charge.
In examining the court's charge we do not segment it and pass upon isolated statements out of context. We must look at the entire charge and assess its full meaning as a whole.1 We have critically read the charge as given in light of appellant's contentions and find it to be satisfactory.2 Moreover, the appellant did not except to the charge on the ground he now urges, and the alleged defect would prompt reversal only if it constituted plain error.3 In our view there is no such error.
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them totally without merit. There was substantial evidence which clearly supports the charges contained in the indictment. The jury so found and the verdict will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
Hickman v. United States, 406 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1969); Smith v. United States, 355 F.2d 912, 914 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1001, 86 S.Ct. 1922, 16 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1966); Beck v. United States, 317 F.2d 865, 871 (5th Cir. 1963)
See Masse v. United States, 210 F.2d 418, 421, 5th Cir., cert. denied, 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105 (1954); Forrest v. United States, 363 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1966); see also Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 80, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958); Valentine v. United States, 272 F.2d 777, 778 (5th Cir. 1959)
Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); see Fahning v. United States, 299 F.2d 579, 582-583 (5th Cir. 1962); Knapp v. United States, 311 F.2d 71, 73-74 (5th Cir. 1962)