United States v. Donald Lavern Culbert
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Alessandrello, Gaetano, in No. 79-2654. Appeal of Lacognata, Salvatore, in No. 79-2699 (3d Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Michael Cataldo (5th Cir. 1987)
- United States v. William Fred Burns (9th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Charles Winfred Carpenter, Jr. (5th Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Ronald Joseph Hackett, United States of America v. Ronald Joseph Hackett (4th Cir. 1980)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Donald Lavern CULBERT, Appellant.
No. 76-1860.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 1978.
An Appeal from the United States District Court; Lloyd H. Burke, judge.
Frank O. Bell, Asst. Federal Public Defender (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Arthur F. Norton, Atty. (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before ELY, CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Culbert, 548 F.2d 1355, and held valid the conviction of Culbert on Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, United States v. Culbert, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 1112, 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978). The case is again before us.
The conviction for robbery in Count 1 is reversed for the reasons set forth in our first opinion, Culbert, supra.
The conviction in Count 2 for violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is affirmed.
No petition for rehearing will be entertained. The mandate will be issued and spread forthwith.
ELY, Circuit Judge (dissenting):
I respectfully dissent, doing so only because of our court's opinion in United States v. Snell, 550 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1977). In the present case, the Supreme Court did not discuss the problem that we resolved in Snell, even though the problem was presented in the brief that Culbert filed in our court. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's omission is attributable to a policy that it will not meet undecided issues in a particular case unless those issues have first been openly considered by the inferior court. My tentative opinion is that my Brothers now disregard the teaching of Snell, but even if I am mistaken as to the legal point, I think it is wrong for the majority now to affirm Culbert's conviction summarily without even a mention of Snell.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.