At page 789 Affirming conviction regarding multiple conspiracy threads5 citing cases
- Iberia Hampton v. Edward v. Hanrahan, United States of Am. Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. Jeffrey H. Haas, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant. United States of Am. Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. G. Flint Taylor, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979).publishedUnited States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Co., 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967). 112 Varelli, supra, 407 F.2d at 746 .
- Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979).publishedUnited States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Co., 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
- United States v. William Abraham, 541 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1976).published United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
- United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1969).publishedUnited States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964).; United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
- United States v. John Varelli, Roy Nielsen & Emil Crovedi, United States of Am. v. Max Heckmyer, United States of Am. v. Morris Saletko, United States of Am. v. Kenneth Bratko & Joseph Rossi, United States of Am. v. John Anthony Borsellino, United States of Am. v. Thomas Daniel Bambulas & Albert Cardenas, United States of Am. v. Anthony Legato, Frank Gallo, & Ernest Infelice, 407 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1969).publishedUnited States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
The judgment of conviction and sentence in this moonshine conspiracy case are affirmed. The contention that no act of the appellant was proved within the statutory period of six years is not controlling since there was ample evidence of appellant’s connection with the conspiracy less than a month before the critical date of February 1, 1957, and there was no evidence to show that his connection with it had ended prior to the occasion of the overt acts which occurred within the statutory period. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489.
There is no merit in the contention while charged with participation in a single conspiracy dealing with separate stills, the proof showed two separate conspiracies. There were several distinct threads running through the actions of the parties m connection with all of the stills and this was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question whether there wag sin le conspiracy embracing all four stills.
The judgment is affirmed,