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. Charles Ray Clem, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 453 F.2d 73
Jan. 3, 1972
William Louis Tabac, Cleveland, Ohio (Court Appointed), for appellant.
Jomes E. Arehart, Lexington, Ky. (Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for appellee.
Before EDWARDS, PECK and KENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on two counts of passing altered Federal Reserve notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 472 (1970). After jury trial he was sentenced to two concurrent two-year terms.
Two issues are presented upon this appeal. In the first appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence for the jury finding of guilty as to the two counts involved. Upon review of the record of this trial and on inspection of the crude and amateurish altered bills, which appellant admits he passed, this court is of the opinion that there was ample evidence for the jury to find that he did so with full knowledge of what he was doing.
As to the second issue concerning the Judge's charge, we find no reversible error contained therein when the charge is read in context in full.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.