*2 Before GEWIN, TUTTLE and Circuit Judges, COMISKEY, District Judge. COMISKEY, Judge. District Appellants, William J. Sanders and Joseph Russell con- were victed of several selling counts of Judge District sus- moving in affirm must vehicles motor disposing of taking guilty “if, tain the verdicts with commerce interstate Govern- stolen, most favorable to the in the view had been the automobiles ment, Appel- is substantial there U.S.C. of 18 violation Downing conspiring support it.” v. United convicted of also lants *3 (5th Cir.1965). 594, “This 601 dispose 348 F.2d transport, and sell receive, to consistently mo- that on held Court has of 18 U.S.C. in violation vehicles such judgment acquittal test ‘The tion viewing whether, the urge to Appellants this Court favorable to the Govern- most of sev because convictions their reverse ment, ac- a reasonable-minded could proceedings be alleged errors in the eral evi- cept the relevant and admissible appellants contend First, both low. sup- adequate sufficient to dence as and speedy right to a they their denied port the the conclusion of defendant’s Sixth Amend the in trial violation guilt beyond doubt.’ Ste- a reasonable delay appreciable There was ment. Cir., States, 1965, 354 phens United 5 v. and indictment of the date between the v. F.2d 999.” Weaver United delay mainly to trial, due was the which (5th Cir.1967). 878, 374 F.2d 881 con these One of continuances. three alleged by It is granted of de motion on tinuances was 1965, February, appellant in the Sand- attorney had whose fendant Doyle Jimmy Sisco, Edgar ers, Hick- and ap It is at the last moment. withdrawn Milton, in trailer at son met Florida, Sanders’ reason parent record that the from the steal, to and a devised scheme the was two continuances for the other transport vehicles. and motor sell Judge’s docket overcrowded District Shortly meeting, and Hickson after this by be circumstances was caused which in Sisco a number automobiles stole ap yond In order for the his control.1 part the of the United southeastern contention, prevail pellants in their to transported Florida. them to States and they only was that there must show not scheme, and Pursuant to this Sisco pur delay, delay a but such doorplates from Hickson would steal prejudicial. poseful, oppressive, Alabama, bring automobiles, a them to 120, Ewell, 383 U.S. registration state, and non-title obtain 773, 776, 627 L.Ed.2d 15 S.Ct. tag on the infor- instruments based appellants no (1966). The have made doorplate. mation on the stolen contained showing here, and af we therefore automobiles, having registered After the point. the on firm District Court this they have, they did not would which Second, appellants matching descrip- contend that the steal automobiles refusing to regis- erred in given the District grant by doorplates tions the day a of the continuance on the instruments, remove the door- tration days. than cars, trial for more two plates replace We from the stolen argument merit, as doorplates that this is without stolen which them with the completely in regis- the defendants have failed they had used to obtain the false their effort Judge to show that the District papers. stolen cars would tration The refusing discretion in abused his be to Florida where then grant longer to a continuance. they registered title would be under laws, by that state the use of Finally, appellants contend that registration papers ob- fraudulent title failing direct trial to court erred in alleged further tained in Alabama. It is acquittal In favor. verdicts of in their by appellant Busch- the Government reviewing a District refusal Court’s conspiracy in Febru- acquittal, a Court kotter entered the direct verdict of this Record, page See being ary, 1965, Fred after told one Sisco was asked how he learned this purchase registration could late that he process, E. Wilson he he said through learned it a automobiles for each. conversation with model $1500.00 appellant Hickson, Sanders and in was interested Busehkotter said he place took conversation in Sanders’ trail- buying intro- such cars and asked to be Milton, Florida, February, er in In duced to associates. Sanders and his began stealing one month he before allegedly February, 1965, Busehkotter transporting Certainly, cars.4 Hickson, and Wilson met with Sanders was entitled conclude from this Florida, at a restaurant con- Sanders conspiracy. at which time he entered the spired carry out in the this scheme agreed upon Under terms place conversation which took in his conspirators, and Hickson would Sisco *4 trailer. One of the listed overt acts registra- cars, steal the obtain the false delivery in the indictment was the of papers, transport tion Flori- and them to by a 1964 Oldsmobile and Sanders da where Sanders and Busehkotter sold Wilson, Hickson to Fred E. which al- disposed of them. legedly place took on or about March We deal first with the convic 16, 1965 in Florida. Wil- appellant conspiracy tion of for Sanders given son testified that he a 1964 was selling dispos and for two of counts 16, by 1965, Oldsmobile around March ing conspiracy of motor vehicles. The testimony Hickson and Sanders.5 This conviction was obtained under 18 U.S.C. enough constituted evidence of least at 371, provides part in that two or “[i]f § jury one overt act so that the was enti- * * * persons conspire more com to appellant tled to conclude that Sanders any against mit offense the guilty conspiracy was of the count. * * * or one more persons any such do act to the ob effect Sanders was also on convicted ject conspiracy, of the each shall be” two counts under 18 U.S.C. § guilty conspiracy this criminal under prohibits disposition which the or sale Although statute. the indictment lists moving of a motor vehicle in interstate pursuance numerous overt acts done in person commerce a who knows that conspiracy, necessary to only this it was had been vehicle stolen. holdWe express language under the stat the presented that sufficient evidence was jury ute for appel the to find that the through witness the lant participated conspir Sanders in the es Fred E. Wilson Robert W. so Sale acy and committed one act with jury overt reasonably that the could have con knowledge the that it in furtherance was participated dispo cluded that he in the object purpose of some con of the sition of the automobiles listed in in the spiracy. opinion We are of ap the that dictment. We further hold that tes the pellant participation Sanders’ timony Sisco, in his con above, con discussed spiracy by enough was shown cerning evidence meeting trailer, the in Sanders’ sending to part warrant this case testimony the Wilson, and the of Fred E. jury. to Jimmy Sisco, the allegedly one constituted sufficient evidence to entitle participants of the scheme, in the testi the to find that he had March, fied that in he that cars the were stolen. Wilson testi several in commerce, cars interstate in riding that fied while he in a car was cluding a 1964 Cadillac which he and Hickson, with Sanders and he asked Hickson had stolen in Mobile.2 Sisco get where the 1964 Oldsmobile to he was gave then the details of the point, Alabama had come from. At this accord registration process ing testimony, described above.3 put to Wilson’s Hickson a Transcript, 2. pages Transcript, page 1005-1006. 4. Transcript, pages 1008-1010. Transcript, pages 415-416. keep FOR REHEAHING him PETITION
gun ON and told to his neck RE- can AND FOR PETITION quiet There Oldsmobile.6 about the BANC alone HEARING EN this doubt be no give enough a basis was PER CURIAM: reasonably conclude upon Rehearing for is Denied The Petition driving Sanders, when the car who Judge panel nor no of this member occurred, knew incident this regular in service on active stolen. cars having requested polled that the Court be Govern We also banc, (Rule rehearing on 35 Federal en sufficient ment Procedure; Appellate Local Rules of on both against Buschkotter 12) Petition Fifth Circuit Rule conspiracy on the count and Rehearing En Banc denied. jury. the case to counts to send introduced testified he Wilson expressed in had who purchasing ques in the cars
terest in
tion, at cock to Hickson and Sanders a lounge Jacksonville, Florida
tail February, further testi 1965. Wilson *5 during present
fied that he was not did recall
most of conversation but makes, they years,
that talked about prices The of the cars.7 Govern TELEPHONE COM- STATES GULF of numer PANY, Appellant, ment showed ous witnesses a used v. salesman, car sold cars the stolen LOCAL INTERNATIONAL BROTH- question, Dewey Wayne testi Lehew ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK- AFL-CIO, fied that he ERS, al., Appellees. a number of et ears into Florida and delivered one No. 25929. directly the cars to Buschkotter.8 We Appeals Court of United States testimony, all of this consid Fifth Circuit. together, ered constitutes sufficient evi 12, 1969. Aug. dence warrant to believe that guilty conspira Buschkotter was on the cy charge charging and on the vi counts olations of 18 U.S.C. It not 2313.
necessary prove
direct had Buschkotter stolen; the cars were knowledge may proved by be cir Pilgrim
cumstantial evidence.
(5th Cir.1959).
basis on find that
Buschkotter knew that the cars were
stolen. foregoing therefore, reasons,
For the judgment of the District Court
Affirmed. Transcript, pages Transcript, page
6. 927. Transcript, pages 419-420.