Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Cornelius J. Kehoe and Ray K. Bullock

United States v. Cornelius J. Kehoe & Ray K. Bullock, 579 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1978)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-09-05
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. In United States v. Kehoe, 573 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1978), we reviewed several alleged errors including defendants’ claim that their conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 657 violated double jeopardy. While rejecting the defendants’ other contentions, we relied on United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 95 S.Ct. 1006, 43 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975) to hold that the § 657 conviction abridged the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Citator

United States v. Cornelius J. Kehoe and Ray K. Bullock has been questioned or limited by later authorities: relies on overruled authority: 43 L. Ed. 2d 250 (overruled by United States v. Scott). Read them before relying on it. 4 later decisions cite it.

Authority status
caution
Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. KEHOE,579 F.2d 971(5th Cir. 1978)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CORNELIUS J. KEHOE AND RAY
K. BULLOCK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 76-4346.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
September 5, 1978.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 16, 1978.
James J. Hippard, Houston, Tex., for Cornelius Kehoe.

Randy Schaffer, Houston, Tex., for Ray K. Bullock.

J. A. Canales, U.S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for United States.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, SEALS, J.
On Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
(Opinion May 22, 1978, 5 Cir., 1978,373 F.2d 335)
Before GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM.
[1] InUnited States v. Kehoe,573 F.2d 335(5th Cir. 1978), we reviewed several alleged errors including defendants' claim that their conviction under18 U.S.C. § 657violated double jeopardy. While rejecting the defendants' other contentions, we relied onUnited States v. Jenkins,420 U.S. 358,95 S.Ct. 1006,43 L.Ed.2d 250(1975) to hold that the § 657 conviction abridged the Double Jeopardy Clause. Subsequently, the Supreme Court expressly overruledJenkinsinUnited States v. Scott,___ U.S. ___,98 S.Ct. 2187,57 L.Ed.2d 65(1978). The portion of our opinion relying onJenkins,573 F.2d at 340-346, must be vacated in light ofScott.We now hold that the defendants' conviction did not violate double jeopardy and we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
  1. Senior Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. ↩