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. Eugene Tannenbaum, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 475 F.2d 28
Feb. 7, 1973
Daniel S. Pearson, Miami, Fla. (Court-Appointed but not under Act), for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Robert C. Byrne, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The defendant, Eugene Tannenbaum, was convicted by a jury on two counts of willful misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 656, and three counts of making or causing false entries to be made in a bank ledger, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1005. Concurrent two year sentences were imposed on each count. On this appeal, Tannenbaum contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that: (1) a connection existed between the misapplication of the bank funds and his status as a bank officer and director, and (2) the entries on the bank ledger were false entries within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1005. Having carefully reviewed the record in this case, we find that the jury was properly instructed as to the elements of each offense and that its verdict was amply supported by the evidence. If we were to uphold Tannenbaum's contentions on the facts of this case, the criminal statutes involved would become nullities.
Judgment affirmed.