United States v. William F. Meese, 479 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William F. Meese, 479 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Schultz (iand, 1996-02-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schultz
N.D. Iowa · 1996 · confidence medium
Subsequently, courts have found that the clear intent of Congress was to include all those who “participate in the operation of a gambling business, regardless how minor their roles.” United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 252 (5th Cir.1994) (only regular bettors are excluded from the count toward the jurisdictional five-person requirement); Follin, 979 F.2d at 372 (citing United States v. Tucker, 638 F.2d 1292, 1296 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 833 , 102 S.Ct. 132 , 70 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981)); see also United States v. Rieger, 942 F.2d 230, 234 (3d Cir.1991); Hammond, 821 F.2d at 476 (a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John William Hammond, A/K/A \Big John\"" (2×)
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Reeder, 614 F.2d 1179, 1182 (8th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard J. Rotchford, United States of America v. Joseph Edward Powers, United States of America v. Ernest Carranza, Jr., United States of America v. Glenn Alan Rinks, United States of America v. David Grant Fennessey, United States of America v. Leo Dominick Riti
8th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919 , 97 S.Ct. 2185 , 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977); United States v. Brick, 502 F.2d 219, 225, n.17 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir. 1973). 51 Defendants complain because the district court did not give their requested Instruction "D" which was their "position" or "theory of defense" instruction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rotchford
8th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919 , 97 S.Ct. 2185 , 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977); United States v. Brick, 502 F.2d 219, 225, n.17 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Max Abramson, United States of America v. Frank Bonfiglio, United States of America v. Paul Cappellano, Jr.
8th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
See United States v. Matya, 541 F.2d 741, 748 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 42-43 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Wolk, 466 F.2d 1143 , 1146 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972); Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877 , 93 S.Ct. 129 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972); accord, United States v. Morrison, 531 F.2d 1089, 1093 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472, 477-78 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Clarence J. Matya
8th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877 , 93 S.Ct. 129 , 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 42-43 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Wolk, 466 F.2d 1143 , 1146 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eugene Schaefer, United States of America v. Angelo Del Pietro, United States of America v. Frank Vinceri, United States of America v. Clifford Lancaster, United States of America v. James Lonsberry, United States of America v. John Edward Vogt, United States of America v. William Christophel
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See United States, v. Sacco, 491 F.2d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc) (division of functions among owners, phonemen and splitters); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 42 (8th Cir. 1973) (partnership with 6--8 salaried employees and division of functions); United States v. Hunter, 478 F.2d 1019, 1022 (7th Cir. 1973) (partners employed 12 others at same office); United States v. Fino, 478 F.2d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 1973) (several bet-writers phone bets in to central office with central bookkeeping); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230, 232 (2d Cir. 1972) (owners employed four runners); accord, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Chiarizio
D. Conn. · 1975 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hunter, 478 F.2d 1019, 1022 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 857 , 94 S.Ct. 162 , 38 L.Ed.2d 107 (1973); United States v. Becker, supra, 461 F.2d at 232 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schaefer
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See United States v. Sacco, 491 F.2d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc) (division of functions among owners, phonemen and splitters); United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 42 (8th Cir. 1973) (partnership with 6-8 salaried employees and division of functions); United States v. Hunter, 478 F.2d 1019, 1022 (7th Cir. 1973) (partners employed 12 others at same office); United States v. Fino, 478 F.2d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 1973) (several bet-writers phone bets in to central office with central bookkeeping); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230, 232 (2d Cir. 1972) (owners employed four runners); accord, Un…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brick
8th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
The courts have held that “all levels of personnel involved in operating an illegal gambling business and not merely the management level are to be included in determining whether five or more persons conduct such business * * *.” United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Manson, 494 F.2d 804 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Palmer, 465 F.2d 697 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 874 , 93 S.Ct. 119 , 34 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230 (2nd Cir. 1972), vacated on other grounds, 417 U.S. 903 , 94 S.Ct. 2597 , 41 L.Ed.2d 208 (1974); U…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Albert Sander Brick, United States of America v. Harry John McCutcheon United States of America v. George Weidlich, United States of America v. Joseph Samelson, United States of America v. Ronald Garold Weinberg
8th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
The courts have held that 'all levels of personnel involved in operating an illegal gambling business and not merely the management level are to be included in determining whether five or more persons conduct such business * * *.' United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Manson, 494 F.2d 804 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Palmer, 465 F.2d 697 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 874 , 93 S.Ct. 119 , 34 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230 (2nd Cir. 1972), vacated on other grounds, 417 U.S. 903 , 94 S.Ct. 2597 , 41 L.Ed.2d 208 (1974); Unite…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Tex. Att'y Gen. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Opinion No.
Tex. Att'y Gen. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Meese, 479 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
William F. MEESE, Appellant
72-1709.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 31, 1973.
479 F.2d 41
Ronald L. Rothman, Clayton, Mo., for appellant., Ann T. Wallace, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mehaffy, Bright, Ross.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
MEHAFFY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant was convicted of operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 which prohibits the operation of an illegal gambling business. It defines an illegal gambling business as a gambling business which (a) is a violation of state law; (b) involves five or more persons “who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business. . . . ”; and (c) has been in substantially continuous operation in excess of thirty days.

A jury was waived and the facts stipulated in the district court resulting in the conviction by The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

On appeal defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute on its face and as applied to him. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.

As stipulated the evidence showed that defendant owned a partnership interest in and operated a gambling business for a period in excess of thirty days involving fifty-four slot machines. He maintained a warehouse used for storing and repairing the machines and employed from six to nine individuals to operate the business. One of the employees, defendant’s wife, was the bookkeeper. Five other employees collected the funds from the machines at their various locations in different clubs. These five employees and another person employed for a period in excess of five months also repaired the machines at the clubs where they were located and at defendant’s warehouse. These employees transported the machines between the clubs and the warehouse when necessary. For a period of about three months an additional two employees were employed to act as change-makers at one of the clubs. Half of the salary of these two employees was paid by defendant.

Constitutionality of § 1955.

Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face since no relationship between intrastate conduct and interstate commerce is required to be shown and that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him in that no showing that these particular gambling activities affected interstate commerce was made. This court has already held that “[c]onvictions under § 1955 do not require a showing in[*43] each individual case that the gambling activities of a particular defendant have affected commerce. . . . ” Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540, 541 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S.Ct. 129, 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972). We further held in Schneider that there is a sufficient rational basis for Congress’ conclusion that illegal gambling-affects interstate commerce. 459 F.2d at 542. We adhere to our holding in Schneider [1] which is in accord with United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1972), petition for cert. filed, 41 U.S.L.W. 3160 (U.S. July 28, 1972) (No. 72-158); United States v. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Harris, 460 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S.Ct. 128, 34 L.Ed.2d 130 (1972); and United States v. Palmer, 465 F.2d 697 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 874, 93 S.Ct. 119, 34 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972). Thus, as we held in Schneider, the statute is a constitutional exercise of power under the commerce clause and is constitutional as applied to defendant.

Defendant argues that his gambling business was a small one and located within a single county in Missouri; hence, he argues, his illegal activities are not within the intended scope of the statute. In view of our finding that § 1955 is constitutional and since defendant is within the prohibited class, we do not consider the magnitude of the particular activity charged since we are without power “ ‘to excise as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 1361, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971).

Sufficiency vf the Evidence.

Defendant contends that he is the only person who conducted the business and that the other persons were mere employees; thus, he argues, the statutory requirement that five or more persons conduct the business was not met. We hold that all levels of personnel involved in operating an illegal gambling business and not merely the management level are to be included in determining whether five or more persons conduct such business within the meaning of § 1955. United States v. Becker, supra; United States v. Riehl, supra; United States v. Harris, supra; United States v. Palmer, supra.

Finally, defendant contends that the evidence does not show he violated Missouri law, 41 V.A.M.S. §§ 563.370, 563.-374 and 563.380, as charged in the indictment. We find this contention to be without merit.

We have considered other related contentions of defendant and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. We also followed Schneider in United States v. Wolk, 466 F.2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1972).