James H. Nicholson v. United States

303 F.2d 161 James H. NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 17624. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 15, 1962. Walter M. Campbell, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, U.S. Atty., Chief Crim., Div., Robert E. Hinerfeld, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before ORR, BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges. BARNES, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant, President of the Bank of Belmont Shore, located in Long Beach, California, was convicted on twenty-six counts of an original sixty-three count indictment of embezzlement, misapplication of bank funds, false entries and deceiving bank examiners. He was acquitted on one count. Of those of which he was convicted, one was a charge of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371); the balance substantive counts relating to embezzlement or misapplication of funds (18 U.S.C. 656), and false entries (18 U.S.C. 2, 1005). 2 Subsequent to the jury's verdict, the following occurred: 3 * On May 9, 1960, defendant was sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine on each count, or a total of $26,000. At the time of sentence, no reference was made directly by the trial court that defendant…

concurring.

I concur in the result.

Appellant, President of the Bank of Belmont Shore, located in Long Beach, California, was convicted on twenty-six counts of an original sixty-three count indictment of embezzlement, misapplication of bank funds, false entries and deceiving bank examiners. He was acquit *162 ted on one count. Of those of which he was convicted, one was a charge of conspiracy ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ); the balance substantive counts relating to embezzlement or misapplication of funds ( 18 U.S.C. § 656 ), and false entries ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 ,1005).

Subsequent to the jury’s verdict, the following occurred:

I

On May 9, 1960, defendant was sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine on each count, or a total of $26,000. At the time of sentence, no reference was made directly by the trial court that defendant should be imprisoned until the fine was paid. There had been a statement made by the judge, just before (or during) the sentencing, from which it could be inferred that it was the trial judge’s intention to commit the defendant until his fine was paid.

After oral sentence is imposed in any case, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the judge to sign, and the clerk to enter, the judgment,

II

On May 9,…