Charles Cantrell Wright, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 376 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1967)
Annotate this CaseMax Pope, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
R. Macey Taylor, Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U.S. Attys., Birmingham, Ala., Macon L. Weaver, U.S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.A. 2312 and 2313, by transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen, and by receiving the vehicle.
The sole contention of error is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction entered thereon. We disagree. The evidence was more than ample.
Affirmed.
---------------
1 In the Switzerland Cheese case the Court stated:
'It is earnestly argued however that, although this order denied a permanent injunction, it was nonetheless 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292 (a) (1) because the motion for summary judgment did service for a motion for a preliminary injunction (see Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, supra (2 Cir., 217 F.2d 936,) at 938) and that therefore 'interlocutory' must also include a denial of a permanent injunction. 'We take the other view not because 'interlocutory' or preliminary may not at times embrace denials of permanent injunctions, but for the reason that the denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. It is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing-- that the case should go to trial.'
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
