Case Name: George E. NIXON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-10-18
Citations: 309 F.2d 316
Docket Number: No. 16751
Parties: George E. NIXON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 309
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
George E. NIXON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16751.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 20, 1962.
Decided Oct. 18, 1962.
Mr. William J. Donnelly, Jr. (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. William C. Weitzel, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Joel D. Blackwell, and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Attys., at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee.
Messrs. Judah Best and Frank Q. Ne-beker, Asst. U. S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and Weight, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty after trial by jury of housebreaking, in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 1801, assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 502, and of assault on a police officer with a dangerous weapon (two counts), in violation of 22 D.C.Code §; 505(b), the sentences for the foregoing to run concurrently, the longest being five to fifteen years for housebreaking. At the same trial appellant was found' guilty and sentenced to five to fifteen years on each of three counts charging assault with intent to kill, under 22 D.C. Code § 501, these sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively with the sentence of five to fifteen years for housebreaking. Thus the total sentences are ten to thirty years.
Counsel we appointed has diligently presented the case in this court. His contentions for reversal center upon errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury. Errors there are; but trial counsel at the conclusion of the instructions, in response to inquiry from the court, stated that he was satisfied. In view of this, and considering the instructions as a whole, together with the very strong evidence of guilt, we find that the errors do not affect substantial rights or otherwise require reversal.
Affirmed.