United States v. Frank Romano, John Ottiano, Edward Romano and Antonio Vellucci
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
LUMBARD, Chief Judge.
Appellants Frank Romano and John Ottiano were found guilty by the jury of violating 26 U.S.C. § 5601(a) (1), possession of a distilling apparatus not registered as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5179(a). With appellants Edward Romano and Antonio Vellucci, they were also found guilty of violating § 5601(a) (8), producing distilled spirits when not being authorized to do so by the law, and of conspiring to violate § 5601(a) (8), 18 U.S.C. § 371. Of all the issues raised by the defendants-appellants as supporting a reversal of their convictions we find merit in only one — the…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hester v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Yee Hem v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Haywood Erwing v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Joseph Costello v. United States of America, Joseph John Cannella v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1958
- United States v. Charles Gibson, Rayburn Hillary and Delmo WaltersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- United States v. RomanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. Ernest Earl SterlingCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- United States v. Alphonso T. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- City of Decatur v. KushmerIllinois Supreme Court · 1969
- United States v. Harry RobbinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.