Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert EMLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1977-10-19
Citations: 570 F.2d 584
Docket Number: No. 77-5182
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert EMLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 584–586

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert EMLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 77-5182.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1977.
Motion for Rehearing Denied Jan. 19,1978.
Certiorari Denied March 20,1978.
See 98 S.Ct. 1496.
Gershwin A. Drain, F. Randall Karfonta, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.
Philip M. Van Dam, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Loren G. Keenan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, LIVELY and EN-GEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case wherein appellant was convicted for interstate transportation of forged or counterfeit securities under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (1970); and
Noting that the sole appellate issue is an attack upon the sufficiency of the indictment which did not squarely use the statutory language referring to "unlawful or fraudulent intent"; and
Further noting the grand jury indictment did, however, allege that defendant "did transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce . a falsely made and forged security, that is, a bank check, knowing the same to be falsely made and forged . . . "; and
Believing that the quoted language from the indictment, plus the citation of the statute itself, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (1970), was ample to charge the offense concerned and the required criminal intent, see generally United States v. Dickerson, 337 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1964),
Now, therefore, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.