Filed: Dec. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1135 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Lonnie R. Moehnke, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 7, 1999 Filed: December 10, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Lonnie R. Moehnke appeals the district court's denial of Moehnke's motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. Having
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1135 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Lonnie R. Moehnke, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 7, 1999 Filed: December 10, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Lonnie R. Moehnke appeals the district court's denial of Moehnke's motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. Having ..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-1135 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Lonnie R. Moehnke, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: December 7, 1999 Filed: December 10, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Lonnie R. Moehnke appeals the district court's denial of Moehnke's motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. Having been charged with knowingly and intentionally making false statements to the Veterans' Administration on two separate occasions, Moehnke contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's conviction and the verdict of guilty on one count but not guilty on the other count are inconsistent. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the district court properly denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. We thus affirm the district court's rulings without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
