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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Clarence A. Swank, A/k/a Jack Swank, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 441 F.2d 264
April 27, 1971
Bernard G. Winsberg (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Gerald F. Uelmen, Asst. U. S. Atty., (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Swank appeals his conviction, after jury trial, for violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 (federal conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (use of wire facilities in interstate commerce for transmitting wagering information). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Appellant, an inveterate horse player, developed a distaste for the uncertainties of regular methods of betting. He had contacts with people at the race track and obtained information on fixed races. He bet large sums of money through bookmakers to avoid affecting adversely the track odds.
Appellant would inform his bookie about two weeks ahead of the race of the size of the bet so that the bookie could protect himself by "laying off" all or part of appellant's bets. Appellant would then inform the bookie of the horse, race and track about an hour before race time to prevent knowledge of the large bet from being widely circulated. In "laying off" the bets the bookie and appellant used interstate telephone wires.
We have carefully examined appellant's numerous assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
The only contention worthy of discussion is that, while appellant intentionally violated state law, he had no intent to commit a violation of federal law. We reject that contention on two grounds. First, the knowing use of interstate facilities is not an essential element of either the substantive offense or the conspiracy to commit it. Second, if it were, the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant made at least one interstate telephone call. We deem that call to be sufficient involvement to uphold the conviction. Cf. United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879, 890-892 (9th Cir. 1970).
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
It is so ordered.