United States v. Franklin Lewis, 657 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Franklin Lewis, 657 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Alice Hopper, United States of America v. Terry Ingram, United States of America v. George Kendall Reed, United States of America v. David L. Ries, United States of America v. George Loren Reed, United States of America v. Janice Mallen, United States of America v. Robert McKendrick United States of America v. Roger Ardell Knight (ca9, 1999-05-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alice Hopper, United States of America v. Terry Ingram, United States of America v. George Kendall Reed, United States of America v. David L. Ries, United States of America v. George Loren Reed, United States of America v. Janice Mallen, United States of America v. Robert McKendrick United States of America v. Roger Ardell Knight
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
However, in United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.1981), the Fourth Circuit held that "the underlying validity of the levy under the revenue laws of the United States is a matter to be determined in a separate action of a civil nature and may not be used as a defense to a criminal charge such as [obstructing an IRS proceeding]." We agree with the Fourth Circuit and hold that the invalidity of the underlying levies is not a defense to charges of obstruction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hopper
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
However, in United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.1981), the Fourth Circuit held that “the underlying validity of the levy under the revenue laws of the United States is a matter to be determined in a separate action of a civil nature and may not be used as a defense to a criminal charge such as [obstructing an IRS proceeding].” We agree with the Fourth Circuit and hold that the invalidity of the underlying levies is not a defense to charges of obstruction.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Alvin S. Jack
4th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
"When the same conduct violates overlapping statutes, the prosecutor can elect to charge the defendant under either." United States v. Brewer, 528 F.2d 492, 498 (4th Cir.1975); see United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jack
4th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
"When the same conduct violates overlapping statutes, the prosecutor can elect to charge the defendant under either." United States v. Brewer, 528 F.2d 492, 498 (4th Cir. 1975); see United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086 (1981).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Sallie B. Coleman
4th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44 (4th Cir.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Franklin LEWIS, Appellant
80-5155.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 17, 1981.
657 F.2d 44
Henry L. Marsh, III and S. W. Tucker, Richmond, Va. (Hill, Tucker & Marsh, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant., Raymond A. Carpenter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Richmond, Va. (Justin W. Williams, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Butzner, Field, Hall.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge:

Franklin Lewis was named in an indictment charging that he corruptly obstructed, impeded and endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the proper administration of the law in a collection action being conducted by the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Lewis was tried and found guilty by the district court sitting without a jury and has appealed his conviction.

The charges in the indictment stem from the attempts of the Internal Revenue Service to secure delinquent returns and collect delinquent taxes from Lewis. In the course of his attempt to collect the taxes from Lewis, the revenue agent discovered that one Daniel E. Vick owed Lewis money representing the balance of the purchase price of a truck which Vick had acquired from Lewis. The agent caused notices of levy against the property of Lewis to be served on Vick and instructed Vick to pay to the Internal Revenue Service any sums owed to Lewis. Upon learning of this levy, Lewis attempted to persuade Vick to pay him the balance of the purchase price by back-dating a check and representing to the Revenue Service that the money had been paid to Lewis prior to receipt of the levy notices. The record amply supports the conclusion that Lewis attempted by this ploy to frustrate the Internal Revenue Service in its attempt to collect the delinquent taxes.

Upon appeal Lewis contends that the Government failed to demonstrate the validity of the levy upon the monies due and owing to Lewis from Vick. We agree with the Government that the underlying validity of the levy under the revenue laws of the United States is a matter to be determined in a separate action of a civil nature and may not be used as a defense to a criminal charge such as that in the present case. We are further of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to show that Lewis acted corruptly and that his conduct was clearly a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Finally the election by the Government to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 rather than the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7212 was not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Perceiving no error of law or fact, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.