United States v. Gerald Vontsteen, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen

higher declared shipper in a (nor regula- to write any statute Nothing in the it to value, tariff called for as the carrier’s us) referenced says that the cited to agreement must be or have. declaration written specified in form lading, or a a bill

either immedi- simple suit between the This is a Indeed, majority opinion tariff. ship- and carrier —to parties shipper ate such that there is no recognizes implicitly lading. nonnegotiable bill of on a ment requirement. presented. Nothing more is involved or for the nevertheless holds majority case, wholly it seems such a unremarkable ground of law on a matter shipper express as to the clear and to hold someone require law failed the case the carrier does agreement, his written terms of “a reason shipper have had that the ment by expressly authorized and not violate or between two opportunity to choose able statute, party sophis- when that liability.” Hughes v. United more levels agreement and ticated understands 1407, 1415 Lines, Inc., 829 F.2d Van to him. options available Cir.1987), language, nor statutory Neither the (1988). This by majority, reported decision cited obviously rests requirement Accordingly, contrary holding. support its limited value statutory provision respectfully I dissent. circumstances under the reasonable “be re transportation.” That surrounding the sophistication shipper

quirement, to which rele potential has obvious

or absence al

vance, fairly as cannot be understood specified mandating particular some

ways necessary declaration written

form for agreement. or America, UNITED STATES lading, signed by the the bill of Here Plaintiff-Appellee, clear and ex- agent, contained a shipper’s the declared stating press provision VONTSTEEN, Skip Gerald a/k/a $5,000 the carri- ton and that value Defendant- greater limited unless a liability was so er’s Appellant. ap- provision declared. were value place immediately above the peared almost No. 89-2745. signature on the bill of shipper’s for the Appeals, States Court of majority held that lading. The Fifth Circuit. shipper would be commercial sophisticated, he knew or language if by this bound 7, 1992. Jan. declare a that he could have known should (and correspondingly pay a higher value rate), notwithstanding that the bill

higher special for blank lading did not have 11707(a)(1) liability provides property freight § 49 U.S.C. forwarder for such or carrier by damage property, written a value established is limited to carrier agree- shipper 11707(c) or written provides part: declaration in relevant § freight forwarder the carrier "(c)(1) ment between freight for- A common carrier and shipper be reasonable if that value would exempt from not limit or be warder surrounding the the circumstances (a) liability imposed of this under subsection transportation.” except provided subsec- section 10762(a)(1) provides in relevant § U.S.C. tion. ... publish shall part: "A motor common carrier containing tariffs the Commission file with "(4) its liabili- limit A common carrier may provide un- transportation it rates transported injury property ty loss or may pre- The Commission this subtitle. der of this title.” section 10730 common that motor other information scribe in their tariffs.” shall include carriers Sokolow, Public Federal Asst. H. Michael Dahlin, II, Federal Defender, E. Roland Tex., defen- Houston, Defender, Public dant-appellant. Atty., Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. C. Paula Houston, Atty., Oncken, U.S. K.

Henry Tex., plaintiff-appellee. mail fraud con- court reversed 21), (Counts through vacated

victions sentence, for resen- remanded entire tencing on Count POLITZ, Judge, CLARK, Chief Before Cir.1989) Vontsteen, 872 F.2d 626 JOLLY, GARWOOD, KING, resentencing hear- I). (Vontsteen At the JONES, DAVIS, HIGGINBOTHAM, Vonts- court overruled ing, the district BARKSDALE, WIENER, DUHÉ, SMITH, presentence the revised objections to teen’s Judges.* GARZA, Circuit M. and EMILIO years him ten resenteneed report and probation without imprisonment, Judge: DAVIS, Circuit W. EUGENE follow. Vontsteen community service sentence, appeals his Gerald Vontsteen sentence. made under violation process a due claiming 711, Pearce, 89 raising inter again appealed, North Vontsteen Carolina (1969). A here. 2072, 656 process question at the due S.Ct. alia court, review to Vonts- review plenary after gave panel of this of this A divided argument, the sentence. affirmed merits of Vontsteen’s ing teen’s claims the banc, we, too, affirm rehearing en sentence. United States Upon affirmed Cir.1990) sentence, only that hold Vontsteen, but F.2d 187 910 Vontsteen’s — U.S. -, did not amount II), (Vontsteen court's sentence the district (1991). 801, L.Ed.2d 862 plain error. 111 S.Ct. consider rehearing en banc to

granted F.2d 957 claim. 919 I. Vontsteen Gerald jury convicted counts of aid twenty-one on January 1988 (in of fraud violation abetting mail

ing II. 1342) count and one 1341 and 18 U.S.C. §§ court’s argues that (in of violation goods transporting stolen of North process due violates 2314). sen district court 18 U.S.C. § 711, U.S. 89 S.Ct. Carolina (1) follows:1 five tenced Vontsteen (1969). 2072, In Pearce 23 L.Ed.2d 656 each of Counts imprisonment on years judicial vindic- Supreme Court addressed (2) concurrently; five run through against defendants by trial courts tiveness through to run on Counts years each ensure appeals. To take successful who other but consecu concurrently with each even free from defendants are on Counts tive to the judicial vindictive- of such apprehension suspended on 10; (3) years through five ness, the Court: supervised proba years for five Count 21 imposes judge parole; whenever completion of concluded tion, on to commence defendant upon a more severe sentence to run con (4) on Count years ten trial, reasons a new on Count after with the sentence current affirmatively appear. proba doing so supervised years suspended for five upon objec- based parole. must be completion tion, of Those begin on also concerning identifiable information five hundred Further, tive the court ordered defendant part as a community condition conduct hours of service original of time occurring sen result of this probation. net the factual And proceeding. imprison years ten tencing package was the increased upon which years supervised data five ment followed record, made must be hours com based and five probation hundred legitimacy constitutional so munity service. * charged before offenses DeMoss, occurred in after Judge Jr. was sworn Because R. Harold 1, 1987, sentenced Vontsteen was not argued En Banc Court November case Sentencing en deci- participate in this banc Guidelines. elected not sion. (1944). recently Supreme re- Court noted fully increased sentence rights appeal. de- viewed “most basic criminal subject under the fendants” waiver at 2081. Vontsteen Id. at Peretz contemporaneous objection rule. court failed to sat- argues that the district States, -, him U.S. S.Ct. when it resentenced isfy this mandate He following (1991) main- successful L.Ed.2d his second sentence was “more (waiver tains that judge to have Article III purposes severe” citing preside selection), jury from five Count Gagnon, 522, 528, States v. U.S. years imprisonment. years probation to ten 1482, 1485, (1985) (ab- L.Ed.2d Vontsteen, According sentence vio- to objection sence of of constitutes waiver lates Pearce because the court’s reasons right present stages to be at all of criminal do “af- more not for the severe States, trial); Levine v. United 362 U.S. firmatively appear.” 619, 1038, 610, 1044, 80 4 989 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (failure (1960) object closing to of to court A. right trial); public room is waiver to first address2 the standard We States, Segurola v. 106, United 275 U.S. in panel majority review. 111, 77, 79, (1927) 48 72 186 S.Ct. L.Ed. II plenary to Vontsteen’s claim gave (failure object to constitutes waiver of Pearce error. Because Vontsteen failed right against Fourth Amendment unlawful contemporaneous objection a to make seizure); States v. Fi United search and to the claimed the district court alert 1020, Cir.1987) gueroa, 818 F.2d (1st 1025 violation, that we conclude (failure object to results in forfeiture of plain error. proper standard delay); Unit postarrest claim of unlawful the grounded Supreme Court Bascaro, v. 1335, ed States 742 F.2d 1365 process in constitutional due of law. rule (11th Cir.1984) (absence objection is Pearce, 395 725, at 89 S.Ct. at 2080. U.S. defense); Unit jeopardy waiver of double however, not, excuse a defendant This does Coleman, v. 374, ed States F.2d 376 707 lodge a requirement the usual that (9th Cir.1983) (failure object constitutes contemporaneous objection preserve an claim). waiver of Fifth Amendment “No procedural principle issue for a familiar to this more Court contemporane right may in constitutional be forfeited objection rule are well known. “This ous by the criminal as well as civil cases failure in salutory rule has its roots obvious [sic] right timely to make assertion of be- finality of the criminal considerations of having jurisdiction fore a tribunal deter- efficiency, States, process, judicial and of trial v. United 321 Yakus it.” U.S. mine ambush.” United 444, 660, 676, States 414, avoiding by 834 64 88 L.Ed. trials S.Ct. Mancari, 1014, majority States v. F.2d 1018 the extent the this case United 914 To undergo (7th Cir.1990), suggested "no to dis a new the court saw reason that a defendant Pearce, disagree. resentencing tinguish to invoke See 910 ... case of after re trial resentencing F.2d at 192. after vaca trial from the case of illegal The same threat of tion of an sentence. was indeed In Pearce the vindictive sentence present, the same safe vindictiveness is retrial, imposed after and the Court referred necessary.” guards are See also Robinson v. resentencing a new when it formu- “after trial” 21, (2d Cir.1982); Scully, 24 United 726, S.Ct. 395 U.S. at 89 lated rule. Raimondo, 476, (4th 721 478 F.2d Cir. States language not But we do read at 2081. limiting 1983). cases This is consistent with own application to after Pearce’s applied solely Pearce to remands that have resentencing trial. have no case that ex- new found discussing explic without way. pressly limits Other circuit Schoenhoff, itly. See States v. applies United agree rule that the Pearce courts 936, Cir.1990); (5th States v. Forest United appeal whether or after new er, (5th Cir.), F.2d by example, preceded new For trial. (1989); (7th L.Ed.2d 264 Jefferson, U.S. F.2d States v. United Colunga, Cir. Cir.), grounds, States vacated on other 1987) II). (1985), (Colunga L.Ed.2d 34 adhered invoking concerning procedure Unit Cir. Perez, rules, waiving those ben- or for 1981). fully, benefits More July Giovannetti, 928 efits.” for the many rationales are “There The contem- necessary that it is rule: raise-or-waive poraneous rule is such a “back- adversary system corollary of our litigants ground understanding.” by the framed which issues court; that fairness to a presented Moreover, imposed by the the burden litigant to advance requires a parties all contemporaneous objection rule on the de- there is a time when his contentions to be free of vindic- fendant’s respond to them factu- opportunity to an After is minimal. tiveness to; chooses opponent if his ally, sentence, any vin- announced court has proceedings; trial promotes efficient rule resentencing in the has present dictiveness preserved reversing error not Vontsteen, and defen- already occurred. second-guess losing side to permits the him, nothing further to fear like have dants they do not its tactical decisions nothing by objecting to the lose result; and that produce the desired sentence. unseemly about tell- something there is short, in defen In diminution the wrong it it when ing a lower court was right protected by Pearce is out dant’s opportuni- the presented with never was system, weighed by gains adversary the to rationale, principal ty right. The to be economy, appellate orderliness. judicial and (1) if however, economy: the judicial that the asks us to remand so Vontsteen appellate an rever- losing side can obtain to, explain reconsider and district court can objected the sal because of error light sentence in of Pearce. But expense second public put to parties and easily have asked for this have been avoided could that could Vontsteen of retrial made; (2) sentencing hearing. and if “The an at objection had an been relief court, designed in the trial it plain to avoid issue had been raised error doctrine there, and the could have been resolved re just such a circuitous waste spared public parties and Lopez, F.2d at 50. We hold sources.” expense appeal.” anof required to make a Vontsteen objection to his sentence contemporaneous Israel, H. Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold preserve grounds of 26.5 at 251-52 Procedure Criminal § error for omitted) his claim of Pearce Unit 1984) (footnote (West, (quoting Forester, Or.App. ed 591 P.2d Applegate, State denied, (5th Cir.), (1979)). contemporaneous ob cert. 493 U.S. hearings (1989). jection applies 107 L.Ed.2d rule S.Ct. v. Lo well as to trials. Cir.), pez, 923 F.2d 47 B. U.S. -, argues alternatively that Vontsteen (1991). objection any contemporaneous he satisfied avoid the contem attempts to Vontsteen Rule 51 of the Federal Rules requirement. by objection suggesting rule poraneous governs the form of Criminal Procedure of the Supreme use word Court’s objections must take to contemporaneous articulating the Pearce rule “must”3 in appeal: preserve error for mandatory. We dis procedure renders the ruling of the Exceptions to or orders general wording “is a feature agree. Such pur- unnecessary and for all court are rules, does not make their legal poses exception an has hereto- Specific rules of provisions nonwaivable. necessary it that a fore been is sufficient promulgated procedure are conduct ruling understandings party, at the time the or order background of against a judge tively appear." at 89 S.Ct. at 2081 stated "whenever im- 3. The Court added). upon poses (emphasis a defendant a more severe ..., doing so must affirma- the reasons for objection. contemporaneous sought, teen’s lack makes is made or court government’s n. 5. The action which to the court the known silence, Vontsteen, according to amounts to take or that the court to party desires thereby per- of his waiver” and action of the “waiver party’s therefor; if a mits this court to review his claims de grounds but and the court object a novo. opportunity has no party order, objec- of an ruling or the absence error; Appellate courts are courts of prejudice that does not thereafter hear de “we do not sit to cases novo.” party. Bryce Commercial Ins. Co. v. Standard 51. Vontsteen maintains Fed.R.Crim.P. Ltd., Apartments, St. of Rule requirements he satisfied the (5th Cir.1983). appellate Thus an court court making known to the district apply some standard of At to take. the court action he desired every frequent it considers. Parties government resentencing hearing, the ly argue their the appro brief view of impose Vonts- court to district asked priate guide appellate standard with a sentence “commensurate teen choosing the correct one. Parties have counsel response, actions.” this incentive standard chosen the court asked affects outcome the case. often Ste with Mr. Davis, to be lenient ven Alan S. Childress Martha served, already he’s

light ix, of the time 4 (Wiley, Standards Review § 1.1 at loses suffered light personal 1986). parties’ [sic] failure to brief and divorce, light of his from the argue properly appropriate standard regard to his heart problems with health wrong may lead choose prison.... gotten worse has party power standard. But no has the to as lenient as for the Court to be And A control standard review. review Mr. certainly sentence possible. And approach ing reject parties’ court both four five no more than to v. to to the standard. See Show Vontsteen ASCAP Inc., Channel, years. 912 F.2d time/The Movie (2d Cir.1990). party If neither request asserts that Vontsteen standard, re appropriate suggests years or satisfies four five proper viewing court must determine request disagree. The Rule We Cordrey v. see Euc own, standard leniency; general plea simply of a (6th Cir.1990), kert, 917 F.2d put the not district sufficient it was U.S. -, of Vontsteen’s on notice court States (1991); claim. (9th Booth, 1235-36 Cir. government, hearing from the After parties 1981), or the court ask counsel, him- and Vontsteen Vontsteen’s did before specifically, the issue as we brief sen- self, court announced its the district rehearing this case en banc. objected spoke No there- one tence. adjourned the after, court and the district ordinarily have the discretion to opportunity to hearing. timely Vontsteen had the legal not issues decide sentence, yet stood silent. Giovannetti, United States object raised. II) adequate objec- (Giovannetti Cir.1991) not make an (7th did Vontsteen F.2d 225 preserve his 51 to claim under Rule There the this discretion. illustrates argue error for government error failed was harmless. of the district court C. whether appellate court addressed argue harmless er government’s fail failure argues next Vontsteen argument ror a waiver of contemporaneous objection operated make ure so, always such and, if “whether a waiver by the related omission excused at 226. court court.” Id.. did raise binds the government government. could government waive II concluded Vontsteen argument Vonts- oral until not “obvious” cannot constitute the was arguments, but harmless-error plain error. a failure overlook had “discretion to undertake argue harmlessness” sentence that is harsher second The court at 227. Id. sponte. the task sua qua non” of a is the “sine the first Rule 2’s mandate ability on this grounded claim. Hardwick v. Doolit- procedure, fairness simplicity “to secure Cir.1977). tle, With- the elimination in administration showing, “there can be claim out such delay.” Fed. expense and unjustifiable resentencing.” upon of vindictiveness at all agree circuits with 2. Other R.Crim.P. Schoenhoff, States v. Cortes, 949 States principle. United Here, Cir.1990). (1st Cir.1991) (agreeing 532, 542-43 all Vontsteen on originally sentenced twen- principle not artic- but with Giovannetti years to ten counts of conviction ty-two test); Pryce, ulating a years probation; plus imprisonment five 1347-48, (D.C.Cir.1991) remand, him to ten resentenced the court (same). 22 alone. imprisonment on Count years contem Here, to make a failed Vontsteen Thus, sentence on Count while relegates poraneous objection. failure probation to years five 52(a). plain error review Rule him to imprisonment, his overall sen- years ten oral ar government waited until That the did not increase. We deter- tence bring this to our attention gument to mine, then, whether Vontsteen’s second unfortunate, We have ad not fatal. but obviously “more severe” than sentence is for the review raised dressed standards the first Pearce. Flor argument before. time at oral first at 2081. Ass’n, Inc. v. United Peach ida Growers controversy in this is some There 120, 127- Labor, 489 F.2d Dept. how to determine other circuit courts about Moreover, severity of successive multi- the relative prejudice, cannot now claim purposes. The for Pearce count sentences specifically brief requested parties Seventh, First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth appropriate standard “aggregate package” ap use an Circuits en banc. we took this case compare the total proach, where courts total sentence after original sentence D. resentencing. v. Pi See United States Cir.) 9, (1st mienta-Redondo, 15 874 F.2d finally he argues (en banc) 493 (plurality), cert. U.S. plain apply if we prevail should even (1989); 890, 233, 185 110 error of review standard “ (3d 15, Neubert, F.2d 16 Cir. v. 898 Kelly which, error when is claim.4 ‘Plain error’ Busic, 1990); v. United States case, of the context entire examined in the Cir.1981); 940, (3d 951 n. 12 United States that failure substantial is so obvious and (4th Cir.1988); 138 Gray, v. the fair it affect would notice correct F.2d Bay, v. States United judi ness, reputation of integrity public or Cir.1987); (9th Hagler, v. States United stated, Alternatively proceedings.... cial Cir.1983). (9th If the is latter F.2d legal is raised or a new factual when former, the is greater than the sentence plain error appeal, on the first time under Pearce. Un “more severe” deemed to consider failure occurs where our ” approach, Vonts aggregate” “total der injustice.’ this in ‘manifest question results not “more se teen’s second sentence was Lopez, F.2d v. vere”; not the district court did increase omitted). Cir.1991) (citation con (5th original of ten error, sentence any, if total court’s clude that district court." 52(b) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. "[pjlain [district] errors or attention provides that 4. Rule rights 52(b). be no- affecting substantial defects brought although they were not ticed standard of review plain error apply a proba- we years plus five imprisonment years re- sentence on that Vontsteen’s hold tion. obviously more severe mand was modify Circuits Eleventh Second It sentence. follows original approach. package aggregate total plain impos- not commit error did court the district court’s compare courts These sentence. ing its second on sentence non-reversed aggregate original sen- appeal with after counts III. same counts before on those imposed tence summary, conclude the defen- we In Markus, F.2d v. States appeal. United objected have when the district should dant Cir.1979); v. (2d States the re- imposed its new sentence at court Cir.1983). Monaco, hearing. contemporaneous sentenced were example, if a defendant For necessary preserve was objection re- court appellate counts but on five re- claim for our full vindictiveness on three the convictions versed made, we Because no was view. compare counts, these courts only for court’s the district actions only the aggregate plain here. find no error error. We plain after both before remaining two counts this “remainder resentencing. Under Accordingly, AFFIRM the sentence second approach, Vontsteen’s aggregate” court. severe” because was “more (in CLARK, this Judge, counts with whom Chief on'the non-reversed JOLLY, five 22) POLITZ, increased and E. GRADY case, KING just Count dissenting: imprisonment. years Judges, join to ten probation Circuit years decision-making in jurisprudence appellate The text own circuit's Our case, in North Carolina is, admittedly, today’s a bit muddled. found subject Henry in United States states: en banc implicated then, in dicta that suggested law, requires that process of Due a defendant’s defendant against when of a multicount single count even a his first successfully attacked having resentencing. 709 F.2d sen- play conviction conviction panel in Unit And 315, 323 trial. new receives tence Cataldo, ed of such vindictiveness fear since the dicta, but Henry Cir.1987) questioned the ex- a defendant’s unconstitutionally deter by the Cataldo collateral- appeal statement ercise contrast, panel in Paul conviction, process due dicta. itself ly his first attack n. 3 States, freed that a defendant requires also again, advocated Cir.1984), yet retaliatory in mo- dicta a such apprehension of of Henry. citing sentencing without approach, Henry of the part the tivation Forester, judge. denied, 493 U.S. Cir.), of such the absence In order assure (1989), the L.Ed.2d 110 S.Ct. motivation, concluded have we a aggre total the to endorse seemed severe a more imposes judge a whenever subject this is approach; package gate newa upon a defendant after sentence however, the doubt, some doing so must trial, for reasons the a Pearce error claimed the reviewed affirmatively appear. Those standard. plain error informa- objective upon must be based on conduct concerning identifiable the for us resolve unnecessary is It occurring after defendant part today, and we methodologies conflict pro- original time of the as to no view intimate so. to do We decline upon data factual ceeding. And sentence relative would determine how is based sentence the increased question should the severity Pearce record, so that of the be made Today plenary review. presented be B. the in- legitimacy of the constitutional fully reviewed be sentence creased agrees that majority apparently in the record nothing to this court known affirmatively discloses of Vontsteen’s case the increased sen- at the time [N]either increasing the trial court’s reasons Pearce, upon nor at tence was years’ pro- 22 from five on Count sentence corpus proceed- habeas any stage in this imprison- ten-year sentence to a bation any reason or offered ing, has the State fol- Judge Hittner It be that ment. beyond the justification approach and aggregate-package lowed impose it.... power to naked reason sentenced Vontsteen for that 711, 725, 726, omitted.) (Footnote original- imprisonment ten-year sentence only 21 reversed counts. ly imposed might have im- speculate he can also imprison- years’ of ten posed the sentence A. initially had been ment because that what with the difference point of My initial punishment for proper he decided was the requirement is its majority opinion of the transporting 22 crime of stolen the Count contemporaneous that Vontsteen make of 18 U.S.C. 2314. goods violation § resentenced he was objection at the time opinion first which remanded This court’s review of his plain error to avoid order the trial resentencing expressly left to that, in the words of appeal of a sentence the determination court’s discretion “unconstitutional” could be on Count whether Vontsteen’s not hold that a does Pearce “vindictive.” greater or a lesser or should be “the same speak reasons into required to judge is trial originally.” 872 than he received Rather, requires no not, however, the record. opinion did at 632. That for an reason prerogative more than that the court the leave to the trial affirmatively appear” ei- greater “must sentence without impose solely some Based stage showing required or at Pearce. in the remand record ther shows, today the record before us majority on what says of collateral review. judge possible that the trial equally it is in the rule laid down that “must” was used should not bene- determined “general feature.” merely in Pearce as of the sentence securing fit from reversal compulsory, obliga- its If it not used in was original imposed on all but one definition contained tory connotation—the sentencing decision be This counts. holding loses every dictionary —Pearce’s Such vindictive unconstitutional. meaning. more Much requires we possibility is reason impli- is orderliness economy appellate assumption vindictiveness. assume justice appearance cated. any aspersion on trial does not cast seen, justice can be root of Pearce. Unless protect written judge. injustice presumed. must be appeal when a record was silent right of purpose explains, an As Pearce so, requires re- To it reasons. do showing to free a defen- explicit presume record compelled to vindictive- view retaliatory requires apprehension presumption dant from the An ness. unrebutted chill remand for could sentence or overturn the motivation that otherwise require illogical to clarification. It object to what defendant to C. illogic is rein- record fails to show. would allow

forced the fact that from those different Albeit showing of rea- required majority, this resolution applied by affirmative review. a decision of No not necessitate to made on collateral does sons be ap- resentencing count issue. aggregate sentence was objection at the time is Pearce’s turn- pearance necessary. this before The record ing point. says our appearance. Pearce

creates affirmatively demonstrate must record Because decision. for a basis judge’s

trial not, no basis there is record does this becloud- now of the issue

resolution Resolution past decisions.

ed in only be- aggregate if the decision necessary to our come ap- aggregate showed

record increasing the basis proach count. single affirmed on a

D. why Judge out to find easy for us It is practical From he did. acted

Hittner why understand it is standpoint, difficult expe- simple choose does not dis- sending case back dient can, in all explanation for an trict court

likelihood, give. readily justification

Because reason power naked beyond the imposed, appears in the it, affirmatively impose us, dissent respectfully I before

record of a sentence the affirmance to be unconstitutional presumed vindictive. America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, SHERBAK,

Eugene Defendant-

Appellant. America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, SALIH, Douglas Defendant-

John

Appellant. 91-8128, 91-8130

Nos.

Summary Calendars. Appeals, Court

Fifth Circuit. 8, 1992.

Jan.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Gerald Vontsteen, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 7, 1992

Citation: 950 F.2d 1086

Docket Number: 89-2745

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.