United States v. Horace W. Boone, United States of Am. v. Earl Dickens, United States of Am. v. Durwood Ray Burgess, AKA Pete, United States of Am. v. Leonard Friedman, AKA 5757, & Horace W. Boone, AKA 102, 499 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Horace W. Boone, United States of Am. v. Earl Dickens, United States of Am. v. Durwood Ray Burgess, AKA Pete, United States of Am. v. Leonard Friedman, AKA 5757, & Horace W. Boone, AKA 102, 499 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Leonardo Soto, Jr. (ca3, 1983-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Government of the Virgin Islands v. Leonardo Soto, Jr.
3rd Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
In Corson , we reasoned that because of the possibility of reversal of one or more counts the convictions on all counts must be retained and the court should “impose a general sentence on all counts for a term not exceeding the maximum permissible sentence on that count which carries the greatest maximum sentence.” 499 F.2d at 551. 6 We rejected a mechanical merger theory which would require vacation of a sentence imposed on a lesser included offense.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bennett
D. Colo. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Boone, 499 F.2d 551 (4th Cir.1974) (suppressing evidence where order indicated authorization had been given by acting Assistant Attorney General); United States v. Lamonge, 458 F.2d 197 (6th Cir.) (absence of date from order rendered orders invalid because of indefinite duration and failed to comply with section 2518(4)(e)), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 863 , 93 S.Ct. 153 , 34 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); United States v. Ceraso, 355 F.Supp. 126, 128 (M.D.Pa.1973) (where order was inadvertently not signed, wiretap was illegal, since omission of judge’s signature was not a cleric…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Betty Erdman, United States of America v. Orlando James Vigi, United States of America v. Dave Palmer and Nick Frank Flowery
6th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Boone, 499 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1974), rev’g United States v. Boone, 348 F.Supp. 168 (E.D.Va.1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Horace W. Boone, United States of America v. Earl Dickens, United States of America v. Durwood Ray Burgess, AKA Pete, United States of America v. Leonard Friedman, AKA 5757, and Horace W. Boone, AKA 102
73-1080.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 16, 1974.
499 F.2d 551
Published

499 F.2d 551

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Horace W. BOONE et al., Appellees.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Earl DICKENS et al., Appellees.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.
v.
Durwood Ray BURGESS, aka Pete, et al., Appellees.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Leonard FRIEDMAN, aka 5757, and Horace W. Boone, aka 102, Appellees.

Nos. 73-1080 to 73-1083.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1974.
Decided July 16, 1974.

Brian P. Gettings, U.S. Atty., David G. Lowe and Dennis H. Dohnal, Asst. U.S. Attys., on brief, for appellant.

Murray J. Janus, Edward D. Barnes, Matthew N. Ott, Jr., Richmond, Va., James W. Renney, Wakefield, Va., C. Hardaway Marks, Hopewell, Va., C. Willard Norwood, Richmond, Va., J. Claiborne Dance, Richard L. Jones, Petersburg, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), William Earle White, Jr., Andrew W. Wood, Richmond, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), James G. Harrison, Hopewell, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), Robert L. Harris, R. R. Ryder, Joseph S. Bambacus and R. Carter Scott, III, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The issues presented by these appeals were specifically resolved adversely to the Defendants' position by the Supreme Court in United States v. Giordano et al., 416 U.S. 505, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) and United States v. Chavez et al., 416 U.S. 562, 94 S.Ct. 1849, 40 L.Ed.2d 380 (1974). The orders of the district court 348 F.Supp. 168 granting the Defendants' motions to suppress are, therefore, reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings.

2

Reversed and remanded.