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
United States of America, Appellee, v. James Ray Jones, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 421 F.2d 841
Argued January 5, 1970 Decided January 30, 1970
Theodore A. Snyder, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Wofford & Snyder, Greenville, S. C., on brief) for appellant.
Thomas P. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Joseph O. Rogers, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted under 18 U.S. C. § 2314 for knowingly transporting across interstate boundaries stolen R. T. French food products of a value in excess of $5,000. The only significant issue raised on this appeal is whether the jurisdictional amount was established. Value is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2311 as "market value."
The goods were stolen while being delivered by French to its customers. The only evidence of market value introduced was the invoices for the stolen goods which showed a price of $5,071.10. This was the price agreed upon by the buyers and seller of these goods and as such is competent evidence of market value. United States v. Palumbo, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 607, cited with approval in United States v. Tippett, 4 Cir., 353 F.2d 335, 338 n. 2. The invoice also showed a two per cent discount which was offered French's distributors as a bonus for payment within ten days. This discount, available only if earned by the distributor, like an interest or penalty charge for late payment, does not alter the value of the goods themselves.
Accordingly, the judgment below is
Affirmed.