Source: https://openjurist.org/545/f2d/26/united-states-v-seals
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 10:28:17
Document Index: 377002830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2113', '§ 2113', '§ 641', '§ 2113', '§ 2113']

545 F2d 26 United States v. Seals | OpenJurist
545 F. 2d 26 - United States v. Seals
545 F2d 26 United States v. Seals
545 F.2d 26
David SEALS, Defendant-Appellant.
In Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner was convicted of receiving, possessing, concealing, storing or disposing of stolen money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) and of taking property by force and violence in violation of § 2113(d), both sections being part of the Federal Bank Robbery Act. Petitioner received consecutive sentences for the two offenses. In reversing the conviction for the receiving and possessing offense, the Supreme Court relied upon the legislative history of the Bank Robbery Act and particularly of the receiving and possessing provision which came into the law later in 1940, and said:
358 U.S. at 419-20, 79 S.Ct. at 454.
A few years later in Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961), a woman had been convicted of stealing money from a naval commissary and also of receiving and concealing the stolen currency, for which she received ten-year and five-year concurrent terms. Both offenses were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 641. In holding that the defendant could not be charged with receiving the same money she had stolen, the Supreme Court relied, not upon affirmative legislative history proscribing the use of both offenses against a single wrongdoer, but upon negative legislative history failing to permit a single offender to be convicted of both offenses. The Court said:
We find nothing in the language or history of the present statute which leads to a different conclusion (from that in Heflin ) here. As in Heflin, the provision of the statute which makes receiving an offense came into the law later than the provision relating to robbery.
365 U.S. at 554, 81 S.Ct. at 730.
365 U.S. at 558-59, 81 S.Ct. at 732.
In United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976), the defendants were convicted of robbing a bank under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and with possessing funds stolen in the robbery in violation of § 2113(c). The Court reaffirmed Heflin, stating:
424 U.S. at 547, 96 S.Ct. at 1026.
424 U.S. at 552, note, 96 S.Ct. at 1028.