Joseph G. Ingram v. United States, 357 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Joseph G. Ingram v. United States, 357 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Madeline Maxwell, 588 F.2d 568 (7th Cir. 1978)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 340 cited at this page1 citing case
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph G. INGRAM, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
22093.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 14, 1966.
Published opinion
357 F.2d 339
1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6882
Bernard S. Dolbear, New Orleans, La., for appellant., Louis B. Merkige, L. Howard McCurdy, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., New Orleans, La., Louis C. La Cour, U. S. Atty., for ap-pellee.
Rives, Gewin, Allgood.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

We have carefully considered the contentions of the appellant dealing with the Government's failure to prove the offense alleged in the indictment, the lack of probable cause for appellant’s arrest, and the “induced” identification of appellant. We find no error on any of the grounds presented. The failure of the Government to prove that the pouches contained letter mail as alleged in the indictment is not fatal to the prosecution as the Government did prove the offense charged in the indictment. The theft of the pouches is proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We are of the opinion that the allegation that the pouches contained letter mail may be treated as mere surplusage. See United States v. Upchurch, 286 F.2d 516 (4th Cir. 1961). The record affirmatively shows the existence of sufficient probable cause to justify the appellant’s arrest. The contention that the identification of the appellant was “induced” is frivolous and without merit.

Affirmed.