John Little Nobles v. United States, 391 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
John Little Nobles v. United States, 391 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Martel v. State (alaska, 1973-07-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martel v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1973 · confidence medium
Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 480-481 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433, 437 (1969) ; United States v. Knight, 395 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied 395 U.S. 930 , 89 S.Ct. 1776 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 249 (1969) ; Nobles v. United States, 391 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Myers v. Frye, 401 F.2d 18, 22 (7th Cir. 1968), appeal after remand, 436 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1971) ; Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir. 1967); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Malone
3rd Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Knight, 395 F.2d 971 (2nd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 930 , Nobles v. United States, 391 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1968), Bell v. United States, 382 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 965 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Little NOBLES, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
24823.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 20, 1968.
391 F.2d 602
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7628
Sanford J. Slobin, Houston, Tex., for appellant., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough and Gerald Applewhite, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Coleman, Clayton, Johnson.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The appellant, John Little Nobles, was indicted for the theft of $710 from a federally insured savings and loan association, in violation § 2113(b), Title 18, U.S.C. Nobles waived trial by jury. The District Judge found him guilty and imposed a sentence of six years in the custody of the Attorney General.

After warnings, the adequacy of which is not questioned, appellant gave a full and complete confession to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because he had been previously questioned, without warnings, by Texas officers, appellant moved for the suppression of the confession given the F.B.I. agent. The denial of this motion is the sole error alleged on this appeal.

Appellant did not contend that the Texas officers questioned him about the savings and loan theft. He testified only that they questioned him about certain unsolved burglaries in the area. Although these officers asked him to talk with them he was never placed under formal arrest. He was allowed to go home after questioning and had voluntarily returned to the courthouse for further discussion when he encountered the federal agent who proceeded to question him about the offense here involved.

This comes nowhere near meeting Westover standards [1] nor is there any substantial doubt about the voluntary character of the confession, viewing the totality of the circumstances.

The District Court, therefore, fell into no error and its Judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. Miranda v. State of Arizona (Western v. United States of America) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.