United States v. George Alvin Tyler

466 F.2d 920 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Alvin TYLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-2143. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 22, 1972. Certiorari Denied Dec. 4, 1972. See 93 S.Ct. 544 . Richard L. Knickerbocker (argued), Torrance, Cal., for defendant-appellant. John F. Walters, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before DUNIWAY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges and MURPHY, * District Judge. MURPHY, District Judge. Tyler appeals from a judgment of the District Court of the Central District of California convicting him, after a jury trial, of (1) larceny and (2) possession of $4,510 in Bank of America traveler's checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (b) and (c). He received concurrent sentences of six years on each count. The only issue 1 raised by appellant is whether all the traveler's checks, at the time they were stolen or possessed, could possibly have had a value of more than $100 as is required by Sec. 2113(b) and 2113(c). 2 His submission is that the checks had no or only a nominal value. It is undisputed that at the time the Bank of…

(concurring and dissenting).

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but solely on the ground that the concurrent sentence rule does not require that we reverse.

1. Value of the stolen travelers checks at the time that they were stolen.

I agree with the result reached by the majority, but the question is not as easily disposed of as the majority would make it appear. In each of the four cases cited by the majority, the charge was not stealing travelers checks or money orders, but receiving or possessing them. In United States v. Carter, 8 Cir., 1971, 448 F.2d 1245 , the charge was unlawful possession of stolen money orders. The court relied upon the fact that the blank *926 money orders had been filled in thereby giving them the necessary value. See 448 F.2d 1246 -1247. In Churder v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 887 F.2d 825 , the charge was concealing and retaining stolen United States Postal Money Orders. The court relied upon testimony that the money order forms, when not filled in, had a value on the “thieves’ market” sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. 387 F.2d at 832. In United States v. Kramer, 2 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 909 , the charge was receiving,…

Tyler appeals from a judgment of the District Court of the Central District of California convicting him, after a jury trial, of (1) larceny and (2) possession of $4,510 in Bank of America traveler’s cheeks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b) and (c). He received concurrent sentences of six years on each count.

The only issue 1 raised by appellant is whether all the traveler’s checks, at the time they were stolen or possessed, could possibly have had a value of more than $100 as is required by § 2113(b) and 2113(c). 2 His submission is that the checks had no or only a nominal value. It is undisputed that at the time the Bank of America traveler’s checks were stolen from that federally insured Bank they were neither signed nor countersigned but each had an imprinted denomination of $10, or $20, or $50 or $100 on its face.

We find the argument without merit. There was expert testimony as to the value of over $100 from two witnesses, thus creating a question of fact for the jury. There was additional evideuce that defendant in fact cashed almost all of them, that is, $4,490 worth. Similar arguments have been advanced and rejected with regard to stolen blank postal money orders and…