Appendix — Simpson v. United States

Supreme Court, U. &

FILED

APPENDIX JUN 13° 1977

“WIGHAEL RODAK, JR, CUERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 76-5761

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON AND TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON,

Petitioners,

—

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 76-5796

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON,

Petitioner,

=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED NOVEMBER 26,

AND DECEMBER 3, 1976

CERTIORARI GRANTED APRIL 18, 1977

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 76-5761

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON AND TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON,

Petitioners,

—

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 76-5796

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON,

Petitioner,

—

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

INDEX

Page

Relevant Docket entries ........ er EPR Sate eee Rn ee 1

Indictment Number 75-87 ......... ene Re Be et RM LA ARR OOET Re 2

Indictment Number 75-86 2.000000. Masses 4

Transcript of Sentencing Proceeding No. 75-87 ................... 6

Transcript of Sentencing Proceeding No. 75-86 .. i 15

Judgment and Commitment Orders No. 75-87 .................. penis 25

Judgment and Commitment Orders No. 75-86... 27

Order of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirm-

ing District Court (dated October 14, 1976) 0.000000. 29

Order of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denying

petition for rehearing (dated November 9, 1976) ................ 31

Orders of the Supreme Court of the United States granting

motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant-

ing petitions for writs of certiorari 2.000000... 32, 33

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

DATE PROCEEDINGS

11-11-75 Indictment Number 75-86

11-11-75 Indictment Number 75-87

2- 2-76 Judgment/Commitment Order Number 75-87

2-24-76 Judgment/Commitment Order Number 75-86

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DATE

10-14-76 Order of the Court of Appeals affirming Dis-

trict Court

11- 9-76 Order of the Court of Appeals denying peti-

tion for rehearing

(1)

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON

No. 75-87

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v8.

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON,

TIP EARLS, JR.

COUNT 1.

(T. 18, Sec. 2113(a) (d), 3, U.S.C.)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

That on or about the 4th day of November, 1975, at

Middlesboro, Bell County, in the Eastern District of

Kentucky,

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON

and

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

aided and abetted by

TIP EARLS, JR.

did, by force, violence and intimidation, take from the

persons and presence of Dorothy Sulfridge, Gail Brooks,

Joann Bailey and Imogene Graves, employees of the Com-

mercial Bank, Middlesboro, Kentucky, the sum of $40,-

081.00, more or less, of money belonging to and in the

custody, control, management and possession of the West

End Branch of the Commercial Bank, Middlesboro, Ken-

tucky, the deposits of which were then insured by the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and in commit-

ting said offense, the said Tommy Wayne Simpson and

Michael Lee Simpson did assault and put in jeopardy

the lives of the aforesaid employees of said bank by the

use of dangerous weapons, to wit, handguns.

3

COUNT 2.

(T. 18, Sec. 924(c), U.S.C.)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

That on or about the 4th day of November, 1975, at

Middlesboro, Bell County, in the Eastern District of

Kentucky,

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON

and

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

used firearms, to wit, handguns, to commit a felony for

which they may be prosecuted in a court of the United

States, that is, they used the firearms in committing the

felony as outlined in Count 1 of this indictment, which

~ adopted by reference the same as if written in full

erein.

A TRUE BILL

FOREMAN

EUGENE E. SILER, JR.

United States Attorney

E. LEE Woops

Assistant U. 8. Attorney

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON

No. 75-86

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v8.

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

COUNT 1.

(T. 18, Sec. 2113(a) (d), U.S.C.)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

That on or about the 8th day of September, 1975, at

Middlesboro, Bell County, in the Eastern District of

Kentucky,

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON

and

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

did, by force, violence and intimidation, take from the

persons and presence of Joyce Day and Joy Bolinger,

employees of the Commercial Bank, Middlesboro, Ken-

tucky, the sum of $41,898.49, more or less, of money

belonging to and in the care, custody, control, manage-

ment and possession of the East End Branch of the Com-

mercial Bank of Middiesboro, Kentucky, the deposits of

which were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insur-

ance Corporation and, in committing the offense, the said

Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson did

assault and put in jeopardy the lives of the aforesaid

employees of said bank by the use of dangerous weapons,

to wit, handguns.

5

COUNT 2.

(T. 18, Sec. 924(c), U.S.C.)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

That on or about the 8th day of September, 1975, at

Middlesboro, Bell County, in the Eastern District of

Kentucky,

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON

and

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

used firearms, to wit, handguns, to commit a felony for

which they may be prosecuted in a court of the United

States, that is, they used the firearms in committing the

felony as outlined in Count 1 of this indictment, which

is adopted by reference the same as if written in full

herein.

A TRUE BILL

FOREMAN

EUGENE E. SILER, JR.

United States Attorney

E. LEE Woops

Assistant U. 8. Attorney

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON

London Criminal No. 75-87

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF

v8.

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON AND

TiP EARLS, JR., DEFENDANTS

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDING—

February 2, 1976

SENTENCING OF TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON

AND MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON

[1] The within typescript contains the sentencing of

the defendants Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael Lee

Simpson at the conclusion of the trial of the above

styled case which was tried in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sitting at

Lexington before the Honorable Bernard T. Moynahan,

Jr., Chief Judge, on February 2, 1976, at 11:50 A.M.

The defendant Tip Earls, Jr., was found not guilty by

the jury and proceedings were had to cover the sentenc-

ing of the other two defendants who had been found

guilty by the jury. The defendant Tip Earls, Jr., was

represented by Mr. William Harrell, Attorney, Tazewell,

Tennessee. [2] The defendant Tommy Wayne Simpson

was represented by Mr. Shelby Kinkead, Jr., Federal

Public Defender’s Office, and the defendant Michael Lee

Simpson was represented by J. David Porter, Attorney,

Public Defender. Proceedings were had as follows:

BY THE COURT: Let the defendant Tip Earls, Jr.,

be discharged insofar as the indictment is concerned in

7

London Criminal No. 75-87, the case on trial. Now, Mr.

Earls, there is a case pending against you here, No.

75-91. Mr. Porter and Mr. Harrell, are you represent-

ing him, each of you?

BY MR. PORTER AND MR. HARRELL: Yes, Your

Honor.

BY THE COURT: No bond was fixed in that case

inasmuch as he was held on the other charge. What

says the United States as to the amount of bond in No.

75-91?

BY MR. ELDON WEBB, for the United States:

United States would move for bond, with good and suffi-

cient surety, Your Honor, in the amount of $25,000.

BY THE COURT: What say the defendants?

BY MR. HARRELL: If the Court please, it would

be impossible for this defendant to make that bond.

[3] BY THE COURT: Well, he made a sufficient bond

in this case.

BY MR. HARRELL: His attorney did, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT: All right. Let the bond be fixed

at the amount of $10,000. If he can’t make it you can

file a motion for reduction and I will consider it at that

time. Let him be held until that bond be executed or

pending some further order of the Court. All right. Let

the defendants, Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael

Lee Simpson, come around. Mr. Tommy Wayne Simp-

son, you were indicted here, and Mr. Michael Lee Simp-

son, in an two count indictment, Count 1 charging each

of you with the offense of bank robbery, Count 2 charg-

ing each of you with the offense of using firearms in

connection with the commission of same. You appeared

with your attorneys, entered a plea of not guilty to the

charges contained in that indictment, you being jointly

indicted in Count 1 with the defendant Tip Earls, Jr.,

the jury was empaneled to hear your case. The jury

having heard the evidence in the case, arguments of

counsel and instructions of the Court retired to consider

the case, subsequently returned into court finding you,

Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson guilty on Count 1 and Count

2 of the indictment and you, Mr. Michael Lee Simpson,

guilty on both Count 1 and Count 2 of [4] the indict-

ment and you, Mr. Tip Earls, Jr., not guilty on the

charge contained in Count 1. He has been discharged

insofar as that case is concerned but I want to ask each

of you now, Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson and Mr. Mi-

chael Lee Simpson if there is anything you or your

attorney wish to say to the Court before the Court pro-

nounces sentence.

BY MR. KINKEAD: Your Honor, I would request

that I might be allowed to see the pre-sentence report.

BY THE COURT: Yes, sir. And I can be looking at

it at the same time. It has just been handed to me... .

Anything you wish to say, Mr. Kinkead?

BY MR. KINKEAD: Yes, Your Honor. We would

request the Court that if it imposes sentence on Count 2

of the indictment that it run that sentence concurrent

with any sentence that is imposed on Count 1. The basis

of that request is that I think the case law is clear—if

an individual is indicted under Section A and Section D

of the bank robbery statute, then those two sections

merge for sentencing purposes and the Court cannot im-

pose consecutive sentences. Section D—or paragraph D

of the bank robbery statute is the gun section, the sec-

tion which has aggravated penalty. I think in indicting

these defendants under 924, the United States is charg-

ing the same thing as if [5] they indicted him under

Paragraph D as well. Inasmuch as a D sentence would

merge I think a 924 sentence should also merge. So I

will ask the Court to impose—if it imposes sentence

under Count 2 to run it concurrently with any sentence

imposed under Count 1.

BY THE COURT: All right. Anything else? Any-

thing, Mr. Porter?

BY MR. PORTER: No, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT: All right. The 10th Circuit, Mr.

Kinkead, in United States vs. Vigil, 458 Federal 2d 385,

is the only authority that I have been able to find on

that proposition. And in that case if gives the 10th

Circuit rule that the 18 U. S. Code Section 924C did not

aggravate the punishment, for other offenses but really

created a new felony and of course if that is the case,

bank robbery could be committed by placing a person

9

in fear by force, violence and intimidation. Under D

without specifically saying—saying a dangerous weapon,

not specifically a hand gun, when it was first presented

to me in an earlier case I came to the conclusion that

the offenses might merge but I studied it at that time

and after having read the cases, the only case law on

the subject, I came to the conclusion that they did not.

[6] BY MR. KINKEAD: Well, I don’t want to be-

labor it, Your Honor, but I think the elements are a

separate distinction as to whether the handgun, which

is a rather tenuous distinction—

BY THE COURT: Well, it’s given me some concern.

BY MR. KINKEAD: I think there is some law that

makes the D section merge but the way I understood it

the 924 charge accomplishes the same thing as the D

section and if the D would merge, I think the 924 would

also merge. -

BY THE COURT: What says the United States

about this?

BY MR. WEBB: If the Court please, I believe that

is covered by the language of 924C in which it says

“shall be in addition to the punishment provided for the

commission of such felony” and it is the position—the

last part of that section says, “Nor shall the term of

imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concur-

rently with any term of imprisonment involved for the

commission of such felony.

BY THE COURT: I haven’t seen that.

BY MR. KINKEAD: I think, Your Honor, that 924

section is [7] designed for situations where the statute

charges a subsequent offense but does not have a gun

section in it and the bank robbery statute, 2113, has a

gun section in it.

BY THE COURT: It says this, “Whoever uses a

firearm in connection with such felonies shall in addi-

tion to the punishment provided for the commission of

such felonies be sentenced to a term of not less than

one year nor more than ten years” and then further on,

“Nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this

section run concurrently with any term of imprisonment

imposed for the commission of such felony.” It seems

10

to say that it imposess a mandatory sentence of not less

than one year nor more than ten years. I have heard

the request but also United States vs. Ramirez, 482 Fed

2d 807, decided by the Second Circuit. “Section 924C

was enacted by Congress as part of the Gun Control Act

of 1968. This section creates a separate crime rather

than merely providing additional penalty.” I don’t believe

the Court can make it concurrent, Mr. Kinkead, in view

of that express finding of the statute, although they do

both refer to—18 U. S. Code 924C, although they do both

refer to firearms. All right, anything else on behalf of

the defendants?

BY MR. PORTER, MR. KINKEAD: No, Your

Honor.

(8] BY THE COURT: Gentlemen, I have looked at

this pre-sentence report while you were examining it and

it presents a most shocking picture as to the defendant

Tommy Wayne Simpson. March 29, 1962, aged nine,

stealing a .22 caliber Colt pistol, Bell County Juvenile

Court, probated to parents. August 14, 1965, petit lar-

ceny, stealing a cicycle, Bell County Juvenile Court, dis-

position unknown. October 24, 1966, aged 14, grand

larceny, auto stealing, Bell County Juvenile Court, com-

mitted to Child Welfare. January 27, 1968, breach of

the peace, drawing a knife, Bell County Juvenile Court,

placed under $500 peace bond for one year, probated.

August 12, 1968, violation of curfew, destroying private

property, Juvenile Court Bell County, re-committed to

Child Welfare, transferred to Kentucky Village Sep-

tember 3, 1968. Had a home visit in December 1968, on

December 28, 1968, he ran away. He was returned to

Kentucky Village, declared absent without leave, dis-

charged from the Department of Child Welfare Septem-

ber 29, 1971. February 21, 1970, absent without leave,

Police Court Middlesboro, Kentucky, released to military

authorities. February 25, 1970, absent without leave,

Bell County Court, turned over to United States military

authorities. March 24, 1970, absent without leave, Bell

County Juvenile Court, Pineville, Kentucky, turned over

to the United States Military authority. May 27, 1970,

petit larceny, Knox County Criminal Court, Knoxville,

11

Tennessee, one year. Received at State [9] Reformatory,

Nashville, Tennessee, September 14, 1970. His sentence

was to expire on February 27, 1971. However, he es-

caped on January 29, 1971, 29 days before his sentence

was to run out. March 17, 1971, Count 1, armed rob-

bery, Count 2, malicious shooting and wounding with

intent to kill, Bell Circuit Court, Pineville, Kentucky.

Count 1, ten years, Count 2, two years consecutive. Re-

ceived at the Kentucky State Reformatory May 14, 1971,

escaped December 23, 1971. January 28, 1972, armed

robbery, Knox County Criminal Court, Knoxville, Ten-

nessee, March 30, 1972, 15 years. Received at State

Penitentiary, Nashville, Tennessee, April 6, 1972, escaped

from the state farm, March 15, 1973, arrested the same

day. June 13, 1973, felonious escape, Lauderdale Cir-

cuit Court, Ripley, Tennessee, one year to be served con-

secutive to the sentence he was serving. June 13, 1975,

petit larceny, Lauderdale Circuit Court, Ripley, Tennes-

see, one year concurrent with above sentence. Charged

with stealing a car the day he escaped on or about March

15, 1973. October 31, 1973, murder, first degree, Dyer

Circuit Court, Dyersburg, Tennessee, 20 years and one

day. This happened while he was on escape, March 15,

1973. The sentence was to run consecutive to the sen-

tence he was serving at the time of escape but concur-

rent with escape and petit larceny sentences. The sen-

tence was to begin September 22, 1980, and probationary

parole date was September 23, 1989, regular parole Sep-

tember 23, 1990, expiration date October 23, 1991. How-

ever, he escaped July 28, [10] 1975. October 28, 1975,

robbery first degree, Bell Circuit Court, Pineville, Ken-

tucky, pending. Co-defendants were Tommy Wayne

Simpson and Robert Simpson. That was his brother who

testified here. This involved the robbery of the Capital

Finance, Middlesboro, Kentucky, August 13, 1975. Octo-

ber 28, 1975, robbery first degree, Bell Circuit Court,

Pineville, Kentucky, pending. Co-defendant was Tony

Wayne Sexton. This involved the robbery of the A & P

store in Middivsboro, on August 9, 1975. October 28,

1975, robbery first degree, Bell Circuit Court, Pineville,

Kentucky. The co-defendants were Mike Simpson, Donny

12

Morgan Crane, aiding, and Robert Simpson, aiding. This

involved the robbery of the East End Branch of the

Commercial Bank, Middlesboro, Kentucky, September 8,

1975. I believe that case is pending on this docket. You

are not on trial for those things, Mr. Simpson. Anything

you want to say about it? You have the right to but

yo don’t have to say anything. The Court does not con-

sider them insofar as imposition of sentence in this case

is concerned except insofar as it might affect whether

you would be a parole risk which the Court would not

consider under any circumstances—probation risk which

the Court would not consider under any circumstances

on the facts as disclosed by the evidence in this case.

Anything you want to say?

BY TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON: No, Your Honor.

(11) BY THE COURT: Mr. Michael Lee Simpson.

September 16, 1970, shoplifting, Bell County Juvenile

Court, Pineville, Kentucky, probated to parents. October

5, 1971, breaking and entering, Bell County Juvenile

Court, certified to the grand jury, indicted October 8,

1971 on storehouse breaking, three counts. October 16,

plea of guilty to count 1, amended charge of petit lar-

ceny and received a sentence of 12 months suspended

except for time served. He served 120 days and counts

2 and 3 were dismissed. February 4, 1974, no opera-

tor’s license, Police Court Middlesboro, $10 and costs.

February 18, 1975, parking in a yellow zone, Middles-

boro, Police Court, day to day. I guess that means con-

tinued. March 1, 1975, no operator’s license, Police Court,

Middlesboro, Kentucky, $10 and costs. May 22, 1975,

murder by intentionally causing the drowning of Ralph

Marsee, Bell Circuit Court, Pineville, Kentucky, pending.

Co-defendant is Ellen May Marsee. October 10, 1975,

robbery first degree, Bell Circuit Court, Pineville, Ken-

tucky. Co-defendants are Tommy Wayne Simpson, Don-

ald Morgan Crane, aiding, and Robert Simpson, aiding.

This involves robbery of the East End Branch, Commer-

cial Bank on September 8, 1975. That charge is pending

I believe on this docket. You don’t have to say anything

but is there anything you want to say about this, Mr.

Michael Lee Simpson?

13

BY MR. MICHAEL L. SIMPSON: No, sir.

[12] BY THE COURT: You are not on trial for any

of those things. You have been tried on some of them and

some of them are pending. They are something to be con-

sidered insofar as probation would be concerned. On the

facts of this case I could not grant probation under any

set of circumstances. It’s a very serious case. Un-

disputed evidence, this robbery was committed by you

two young men using firearms, locked these people in

the vault, took the bank manager’s car and due to a set

of circumstances that were unforeseen the road was

blocked and the officer happened to be there who knew

you. A shooting incident occurred that has been de-

scribed in the evidence. It is most regrettable. It is the

Judgment of the Court that the defendant Tommy Wayne

Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson, and each of them, be

committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the

United States for a period of twenty-five (25) years

upon the charge contained in Count 1 of the indictment.

It is the further judgment of the Court that defendants

Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson, and

each of them, be committed to the custody of the At-

torney General of the United States for and additional

period of ten (10) years on the charge contained in

Count 2 of the indictment. That is to say, the sentence

imposed on Count 2 of the indictment of ten years is to be

served consecutive to and to begin at the expiration of

the sentence heretofore imposed on Count 1 of the indict-

ment, of 25 years, as [13] to each defendant, the total

period of confinement to be a period of thirty-five (35)

years. Now, Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson and Mr.

Michael Lee Simpson, it is my duty to advise you that

as you were tried by a jury and found guilty you have

the right to an appeal. If you are unable to defray the

cost of an appeal you may be permitted to appeal in

forma pauperis. The Court further finds that in impos-

ing sentences on these gentlemen, Tommy Wayne Simpson

and Michael Lee Simpson, that said defendants will not

benefit from the provisions of the Yout) “orrections Act

and has declined to sentence them thereunder and has

given a straight committed sentence herein. Madame

14

Clerk, will you please advise the defendants as to their

rights?

BY THE CLERK: “I, the defendant, in the above

styled case hereby acknowledge and state that the Court

has advised me this 2nd day of February, 1976, of my

right to appeal and of the right of a person who is

unable to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis without cost to me.

“This statement was read to me by the Clerk in

open court after the Court informed me of my right to

appeal and the explanation by the Court of my right

to appeal was clearly and fully understood by me.”

(signed by defendant. )

“Michael Lee Simpson. I, the defendant in the above

styled case, hereby acknowledge and state that the Court

has advised me this 2nd day of February, 1976, of my

right [14] to appeal and of the right of a person who is

unable to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis without cost to me. This state-

ment was read to me by the Clerk in open court after

the Court informed me of my right to appeal and the

explanation by the Court of my right to appeal was

clearly and fully understood by me.” (signed by defend-

ant.)

BY THE COURT: Gentlemen, while the defendants

Simpson are present, on this case 75-86 on the docket of

this Court, charging these defendants with the offenses

announced therein, I have entered an order assigning

that case for trial three weeks from today February 23,

at 9:30 in this courtroom. I have further entered an

order directing the summoning of an additional 85 pros-

pective jurors to sit in the trial of this case since this

jury panel here has heard this case and are therefore

perhaps disqualified to hear the second one. All right,

gentlemen.

At this time the defendants were remanded to the

Marshal and Court was adjourned.

[Court Reporter’s certificate omitted in printing]

15

[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LONDON

London Criminal No. 75-86

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF

v8.

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, DEFENDANT

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDING—

February 24, 1976

The within transcript comprises the record on appeal

as designated by the Federal Public Defender’s Office,

Lexington, acting upon behalf of the above defendant.

The designation of record specifies the indictment, the

allocution, the sentencing and the final judgment herein.

This trial was held in the above Court beginning on

February 23, 1976 and running on successive or subse-

quent days until completed, before the Honorable Ber-

nard T. Maynahan, Chief Judge. The plaintiff herein

was respresented by Mr. James Arehart, Assistant

United States Attorney, and the defendant above was

represented by Mr. Fred Fugazzi, Jr., of the Federal

Public Defender’s Office, Mr. Arehart in opening state-

ment read the indictment, as follows:

BY MR. AREHART: “United States of America vs.

Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson, United

States District Court [2] for the Eastern District of

Kentucky, London, London No. 75-86. Count 1: The

Grand Jury charges that on or about the 8th day of Sep-

tember 1975, at Middlesboro, Bell County, Eastern Dis-

trict of Kentucky, Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael

Lee Simpson, did by force, violence and intimidation

take from the person and presence of Joyce Day and Joy

Bollinger, employees of the Commercial Bank, Middles-

boro, Kentucky, the sum of $41,898.49, more or less, of

16

money belonging to and in the care, custody, control,

management and possession of the East End Branch of

the Commercial Bank of Middlesboro, Kentucky, the de-

posits of which were then insured by the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, and in committing the offense the

said Tommy Wayne Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson

did assault and put in jeopardy the lives of the afore-

said employees of the said bank by the use of dangerous

weapons, to wit, handguns. Count 2: that on or about the

8th day of September 1975, at Middlesboro, Bell County,

in the Eastern District of Kentucky, Tommy Wayne

Simpson and Michael Lee Simpson used firearms, to wit,

handguns, to commit a felony for which they may be pros-

ecuted in a Court of the United States, that is, they used

firearms to commit a felony as outlined in Count 1 of

this indictment which is adopted by reference the same

as if written in full herein.”

VERDICT: We, the jury, find as to the charge con-

tained in Count 1, Tommy Wayne Simpson guilty... We,

the jury, find as [3] the charge contained in Count 2 the

defendant, Tommy Wayne Simpson, guilty ... John H.

Marsh, Foreman.

BY THE COURT: Is that your verdict, members of

the jury? Any question as to the form of the verdict

upon behalf of either the United States or the defendants?

BY MR. AREHART: No, Your Honor.

BY THE DEFENSE: No, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT: Very well. Let the defendants

come around. Let the record show the defendants and

their counsel are present in the courtroom, the United

States Attorney is present in the courtroom. Mr. Tommy

Wayne Simpson and Mr. Michael Lee Simpson, each of

you were indicted by the Grand Jury charged with the

offense of bank robbery in violation of Title 18 Section

2113 A and B of the United States Code, in Count 1

of the indictment; you are charged with using firearms

in connection with the commission of said bank robbery

offense, in Count 2 of the indictment. You appeared with

your attorneys, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges

contained in the indictment. Thereafter a jury was em-

panelled to hear your case and the jury having heard the

17

evidence in the case, the arguments of counsel and the

instructions of the Court, retired to consider [4] the ‘case

and subsequently returned into court a verdict finding

each of you guilty of the charges contained in the two

counts of the indictment. I want to ask you now if there

is anything that either of you wishes to say or anything

your attorneys wish to say before the judgment of the

court is pronounced.

BY MR. FUGAZZI: If the Court please, on behalf

of Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson I want to state to the

Court that on the 924C charge and the 2113 B charge

should merge, as I have stated to the Court before.

BY THE COURT: Well, we had that similar issue

come up in 75-87 and I ruled in that case that in my

opinion, based on the only Circuit Court of Appeals case

of record, that they did not merge and I am of the opinion

that if you read the applicable case law they do not merge.

I believe that other case is in the process of being ap-

pealed.

BY MR. FUGAZZI: Yes, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT: I understand your request but the

statutes and the legislative history indicates an intention

7 ampeee an additional punishment. All right. Anything

else?

BY MR. FUGAZZI: No, Your Honor.

[5] BY MR. WILMOTT: Your Honor, I would make

the same request on behalf of Michael Lee Simpson.

BY THE COURT: And I make the same opinion and

perhaps it will be resolved in the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals and perhaps eventually by the Supreme Court.

The only applicable case law on it I could find in the Cir-

cuit Court was contrary to the position that you gentle-

men take. I think that is binding on it in the absence of

something different from the Sixth Circuit. All right.

Anything else, gentlemen?

BY THE DEFENSE: No, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT: Anything, Mr. Tommy Wayne

Simpson?

BY MR. TOMMY SIMPSON: No, sir, there isn’t.

BY THE COURT: Anything you wish to say, Mr.

Michael Lee Simpson?

18

BY MR. MICHAEL SIMPSON: No, sir.

BY THE COURT: Well, I note, Mr. Tommy Wayne

Simpson, March 29, 1962, stealing a .22 caliber Colt, Bell

County Juvenile [6] Court, probated. August 14, 1965,

petit larceny, stealing a bicycle, Bell County Juvenile

Court, disposition unknown. October 24, 1966, grand lar-

ceny, auto stealing, Bell County Juvenile Court, commit-

ted to Child Welfare. January 27, 1968, breach of the

peace, drawing a knife, Bell County Juvenile Court,

placed under $500 peace bond for one year, probated.

August 12, 1968, violation of curfew, destroying private

property, Beil County Juvenile Court, re-committed to

Child Welfare. Returned as placement violator on Aug-

ust 17, 1968, transferred to Kentucky Village September

3, 1968, given a home visit in December 1968, Decem-

ber 28, 1968, ran away, declared absent without leave,

discharged September 29, 1971. February 21, 1970, ab-

sent without leave, Police Department, Middlesboro, Ken-

tucky, released to the military authorities. February 25,

1970, absent without leave, Bell County Court, Pineville,

Kentucky, turned over to United States Military Police.

March 24, 1970, absent without leave, Bell County Court,

Pineville, Kentucky, turned over to U.S. Military Police.

May 27, 1970, petit larceny, Knox County Court, Knox-

ville, Tennessee, one year. Sentence was to expire Feb-

ruary 27, 1971. However, he escaped January 28, 1971.

March 17, 1971, Bell Circuit Court, Count 1, armed rob-

bery, Count 2, malicious shooting wounding with intent

to kill. Count 1, ten years and Count 2, two vears con-

secutive, received at State Reformatory, LeGrange, Ken-

tucky, May 14, 1971, escaped December 23, 1971. Jan-

uary 28, 1972, armed robbery, [7] Knox County Criminal

Court, Knoxville, Tennessee, 15 years. Received at State

Penitentiary April 6, 1972, escaped from State Farm

March 15, 1973. Arrested the same day. June 13, 1973,

felonious escape, Lauderdale Circuit Court, Ripley, Ten-

essee, one year to be served consecutive to the sentence he

was then serving. That’s the same escape. June 13,

1973, petit larceny, Lauderdale Circuit Court, Ripley,

Tennessee, one year concurrently to above sentence.

Charged with stealing a car on the day he escaped, on

19

March 15, 1973. October 31, 1973, murder in the first

degree, Dyer Circuit Court, Dyersburg, Tennessee, 20

years and one day. This happened while he was on

escape. The sentence was to run consecutive to the sen-

tence he was serving at the time of the escape but con-

current with the escape and petit larceny sentence from

Lauderdale County. Sentence was to begin September 22,

1980, and probationary parole was September 23, 1989,

regular parole September 23, 1990, expiration dated Oc-

tober 23, 1991. However, he escaped July 28, 1975.

October 28, 1975, robbery first degree, Bell County Cir-

cuit court, Pineville, Kentucky, pending. This involves the

robbery of Capital Finance, Middlesboro, Kentucky, on

August 13, 1975. October 28, 1975, robbery first degree,

Bell Circuit Court, Pineville, Kentucky, pending. This

involves a robbery of the A & P Store, Middlesboro, Ken-

tucky, August 9, 1975. October 28, 1975, robbery, first

degree, Bell Circuit Court, pending. The defendants were

Mike Simpson, Donna Crane [8] and Robert Simpson.

This involved the robbery of the East End Branch of

the Commercial Bank, Middlesboro, Kentucky, on Septem-

ber 8, 1975. That’s the charge that you were tried on here

today. Classification material from the Kentucky Depart-

ment of Corrections, Frankfort, Kentucky, involving the

12-year sentence which the defendant received May 10,

1971, for armed robbery and malicious shooting and

wounding with intent to kill. This was out of the Bell

Circuit Court, Pineville, Kentucky, and the defendant’s

statement of the classification study, states, “My wife and

I were stranded in Harrogate, Tennessee. Mark John-

son came along and picked us up. When we got to

Middlesboro he demanded pay and I told him I had no

money. He grabbed my wife by the leg and said he would

just as soon take it out in trade of my wife. I grabbed

him and in the scuffle he pulled a .22 pistol and I

knocked it out of his hand. He came at me. I shot him

four times in the head. During the scuffle he lost his

money and I picked it up.” However, the version in

Middlesboro is considerably different. According to certain

authorities, Tommy Simpson and his wife were on a rural

road in Tennessee on a stolen motorcycle. Tommy Simp-

20

son was in escape status, having recently escaped from

state custody in Tennessee. The motorcycle stalled and

Simpson went to a store and told the owner that his wife

was il! and need to be rushed to tne Middlesboro Clinic.

A man brought them to Middlesboro. When they arrived,

the wife jumped out of the car and ran to Simpson’s

[9] parents’ home, which was located near the Middles-

boro Clinic. Simpson then pulled a gun and forced the

man to drive into a cemetery in Middlesboro, robbed him

and told him to get out of the car and lie face down.

Simpson shot the man five times in the back of the head.

That’s so much for that, except it leaves out one thing.

Give me No. 75-87, please, ma’am. Do you have the

record in here? Well, No. 75-87 charges—No.75-87 on

which you were tried in this Court on February 2nd

charges you and each of you with the robbery of the West

End Branch of the Commercial Bank of Middlesboro by

use of firearms. And you were convicted and the evidence

in that case was that you went into the West End Branch

of this bank, robbed the employees of the bank under

similar conditions. You took the bank manager’s car and

started out through Cumberland Gap and unfortunately

for you all, the road was blocked there where they were

trying to pull a car back up right near the Virginia

border with the wrecker and the Deputy Sheriff from

Middlesboro was up there at the scene and had got the

report that you had robbed the bank. You were then in

the bank manager’s car and then when he advanced on

you where you were stopped by traffic, each one of you

had a gun. Mr. Michael Simpson had the automatic

that the Government had here but which it was unable to

show was used in this robbery. You made a menacing

movement toward the officer, at which point he shot

Mr. Michael Simpson, went back behind the quarter panel

of the car and shot Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson. Mr.

[10] Tommy Wayne Simpson had a revolver in his left

hand and was trying to back up the car and get away,

had to change the gears. So about 60 days apart as I

recall you robbed the East End Branch of $41,000 odd

and you robbed the West End Branch of the same bank of

some $41,000. In the second case you still had the money

21

behind the seat in this pillow case. Very brassy fellows.

Of course, you have already been sentenced to 35 years,

Mr. Tommy Wayne Simpson, on the robbery of the West

End Branch. Now, you appear before this Court for

sentencing for robbing the East End Branch.

Now, Mr. Micnael Lee Simpson, September 16, 1970,

shoplifting, Bell County Juvenile Court, Pineville, Ken-

tucky, probated. October 5, 1971, breaking and entering,

Bell County Juvenile Court, certified to the Grand Jury.

Indicted for storehouse breaking, three counts. October

16, you entered a plea of guilty to count 1 amended to

petit larceny, received a sentence of 12 months suspended

except for time served. He served 128 days. Counts 2

and 3 were suspended. February 1, 1974, no operator’s

license, Police Court, Middlesboro, Kentucky, $10 and

cost. February 18, 1975, parking in a prohibited zone.

Police Department, continued. March 7, 1975, no op-

erator’s license, Police Court, Middlesboro, May 27, 1975,

murder by intentionally causing the drowning of Ralph

Marsee, Bell Circuit Court, pending. Co-defendant is

Ellen May Marsee. As I recall, the wife of the man that

was drowned, or alleged to have drowned. [11] October

28, 1975, robbery, first degree, Bell Circuit Court, Pine-

ville, Kentucky. This involves the robbery of the East

End Branch of the Commercial Bank on September 8,

1975. That is the offense for which you have been con-

victed here. You are also indicted in 75-87 with Tommy

Wayne Simpson of robbing the West End Branch of

the same bank and, as he was, you were heretofore con-

victed in this Court on that charge and received a 35

year sentence. Now, you are only on trial, gentlemen,

on the charge contained in this case. But I don’t believe

I have ever seen such gangster tactics out of such rela-

tively young men. You robbed these two banks. There

is no doubt of that. You have been convicted of that.

You have been charged and convicted of some of these

other things. You are not on trial for those things.

But it is terrible that in a town the size of Middlesboro

with a population of about 12,000 people that you go

over on one end of town and rob one bank and then come

back in two months and rob the one on the other end

22

and get away with $40,000 each time. The evidence

was that you were big, brave fellows, took these pistols

and poked in these young women’s faces, told this young

man to put his hands up on the table and scoot back.

The public is entitled to protection and this thing of just

coddling these kinds of terrible offenses as far as I am

concerned has to stop. It is the judgment of the Court

that in this case the defendants, Tommy Wayne Simpson

and Michael Lee Simpson, and each of them, be com-

mitted to the [12] custody of the Attorney General

of the United States for a period of 25 years on the

charge contained in Count 1 of the indictment. Further,

it is the judgment of the Court that the defendants and

each of them be committed to the custody of the At-

torney General of the United States for an additional

period of ten years on the charges contained in Count 2 of

the indictment, the two sentences to be served consecu-

tively, total sentence to be 35 years, and that sentence

imposed in this case, in each of these cases, to be served

consecutively to the sentences heretofore imposed on said

defendants in this Court on February 2, 1976 in No. 75-

87. The sentences this day imposed are to be served con-

secutively to one another and to be served consecutively—

that is, to begin at the expiration of the sentences here-

tofore imposed for the robbery of the West End Branch

of this bank. All of these sentences to be served con-

secutively. That is, one in addition to the other. The

public is entitled to some protection and I just am ap-

palled that you would come into a town like Middles-

boro and just attempt to take over a bank. Like a

bunch of highwaymen and thugs. All right. The Court

further finds that the defendants will not benefit from the

provisions of the Youth Corrections Act and declines

to sentence the defendants thereunder. It’s my duty un-

der the law to advise each of you that as you were tried

by a jury and found guilty, you have a right to an ap-

peal. If you are unable to defray the cost of an appeal

you may be [13] permitted to appeal in forma pauperis

upon making the proper showing. Read the statement to

them as to their right of appeal.

BY THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. London Crim-

23

inal No. 75-86, United States of America v. Tommy

Wayne Simpson. I, the defendant in the above-styled

case, hereby acknowledge and state that the Court has

advised me this 24th day of February, 1976, of my

right to appeal and of the right of a person who is un-

able to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis without cost to me. This state-

ment was read to me by the Clerk in open court after

the Court informed me of my right to appeal and the

explanation by the Court of my right to appeal was

clearly and fully understood by me. (signed by defend-

ant and counsel.)

London Criminal No. 75-86, United States of America

v. Michael Lee Simpson. I, the defendant in the above-

styled case, hereby acknowledge and state that the Court

has advised me this 24th day of February 1976, of my

right to appeal and of the right of a person who is un-

able to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis without cost to me. This state-

ment was read to me by the Clerk in open court after the

Court informed me of my right to appeal and the explana-

tion by the Court of my right to appeal was clearly and

fully understood by me. (Signed by defendant and coun-

sel. )

[14] BY THE COURT: Now, gentlemen, counsel has

been provided with the statement of duties of counsel in

connection with the any contemplated appeal. Let the

record show—let them be so provided and let the record

show that they have been so provided. Now, the Court

further recommends that these defendants not be con-

sidered for parole when eligible. Their history of violence

indicates that they constitute a menace to society and

society is entitled to be protected. All right. Let the

defendants © remanded to the custody of the Marshal.

+ . *

.

[Court Reporter’s certificate omitted in printing]

JW SN oul 012

qwewBpn{ siya jo Ado? paji1499 &

seanop iets tat SpA pA DoAREL 9)

me Aq pen yyussed SIPOA Bay JO ee

Wo suouypues mp aBuey> Ae 14060 AL

Aqauey $) 1} ‘@AoQge pesodw) vor

ayOAas ques

e ‘

1

0A2s P sem © ons; A

ui vo wonrgnd pa pod wat pees pe voueyea

pus aaa teen a Seurmumng oaen' se pus coweqmee 30

weve Teuiey Union Giand Op Os yonaimene yh ft 4. 9

“307 pres sep

SSUSHUSS OF SOUTT SOP PUS GOV HIDTBVSLE09 Bene, Say FO ouoTsTs07d

oy} cepmm ZTyeuseq 4°OU TITA VUUpUazePp 4) 3UNE SHUTS BIRCH SU

"sup QUROD Ww eoUequeS JO yy go a oy 38

UTBeqQ OF PUB Of SATRIROOSUCD peAroS oq 03 a boynalg quewmmoeysaay

OAL QUROD UO mal

uo guMOD UO suVEX (Sz Sy! LLESAL

JO pojsed & 104 JUEUMUOS)100y) 10) BA!YE}UES9200) PoT/JOMINE sy 20 [ERBUST) AsWIOTIy Oy) JO AporsN? oy) 01 Per)} papacy 40u

8} WwRPUOOP oy, :1 oop posngien pot peenyuns pur pelipy> se Arjn8 suepuayep oy: peBpnipe t1n0d oy "unos oyr 01 pertedde Jo ‘UMOYS FEM

Asts4UO? OY) 01 GENE 100/2{jjNt OU SENEIEG ‘pesUNCUOIE 0g 1OU Pinoys }ueWEPN| Aum Age on BujyrAuP pey lURpUSsep Jey1e4ym PeXFR 1/0? OU,

ry * T g-n*p)ee) ee uy *Auotes @ oy curt ark rereecys Stee

25 eareutews

SiO ts oes “OT STITZ

vm emaseius 06 as ‘gt st¥es Jo wopevToTA wy Vyundeen |

pus Buy ztnesse pue Lreqqor UVP jo (s)25u9)j0 94) jo paBsey> se po12!Au0> uoaq sey jUPpUI)9q

2 pues T squMmeD ©2 °A11IND xe 0 wopeie(MEEBe Buea e104,

. por uy | SNOILIONOD

TWRHOLIOV

WOLLVEOUd

u30u0

NOLLVEOUd

40

JINILNIS

™

a

Anawoonr

9 ONIONIS

poBseyrsip s! VEPUDJIG “ALTIND LON [7

*Pojd Oy} 10) S1SEQ jENIIE, & 5) 104)

ALTIND LON yy "JYIONILNOD OTON | ! JeYX Pes es Bujeg tN? ey) pur ‘AL TINS 7

(j@suNod ;o awe)

~~ ro | AGTOUsS ——S ™) ‘WSNNOO HLIM

pn gg agcragnn s0y) JUPPUajap rao MNO? ay) Aq pajulodde jetunos aar

jesuno> a 18s

"jesUNO? jo

©} pei/sep UEPUREP JeYLEYM PeYSE P

| 9l6t ‘e Arenzqed |_i«

Avo

YVONNE

HIGHO LNIWLIWWOOD/NOILVEOYd GNV LNIW

4 ANOK 20}1ISIC 8098IG PSU

mm 7?0 N

Shnestemunen

vale

a. 3

)

UEPUSj/OP POHAPE LNOD Oy sJeABMOH TISNNOO LNOHLIM [4 13SNNDD

wosodutxey] 38

MEP s14) UO UOWed UW paseadde jURPUajep ay)

WUAWUJAO 94) 20) A0UI07)8 Oy) JO aoUsseId ay) UY

“SA EDUBUIY JO SAIS Pau)

asneI05-? — oS TMM snes ze ‘ueqwutom *L preuiog

wMumIDt ) - enter sn

TTA? Me gpy — +) CYYNYSE 4 ’

dt Atel o:- eh td ’ S 3

WA 4 | ur NYHYNAGW stone wna “sn AXE

98) oo 834 oo A® G3NodIS

NO. Ado anv. v Sv OBNILY39 a:

jal $s 934

[ nouva

“2971jjO Par EMd s9yI0 10 [eYS ‘NIWWOID3U

OW SN 241 OF 1UaUNIWWO? pur INIWLINWOD

uawSpni siyy sO AOD patjis99 &

J9A2P 4494) 2y2 LEU Paseps0 H 1h

‘spuausus0r9) puke (2/9U95 Aaqusonry yi jO Apoysnd ay) 0} Tus HUIWO? $4ap10 12N0D ay) <

“‘poriad voneqgosd 24) Burinp Bur2sn290 pe poy 104 ye NOUVSOUd

‘ ' 2d eqoid wnwixew © uly 10 polidd UOHeQoid ay) BuLINP IW) AUF

ee ee ian Hae no rigas ‘womngned ps veneapuee pa adueys Aew UuN0> 244 “produ aq yUIWTpN! sty) JO IpIS 319491 a ae

24} UO 10 135 YOHeqosd jo SUONIPUOD pte poll EY) p2sapse Aqoiay % Hf ‘MOQ Pasoduy YOHEQosd jo SUO!)PUO> je}2eds 24) OF VOINIPPE U} WNOUIOOV

*a°o°u’a *ZE Om? Of QuEnsrnd ‘zy 7QUTETd sqQ rox TesunO

pues jUBpuazep euR 403 TesUMOS CO; peusTurny erem setdcoS pus ooueques J

UOT3TSOdmyT ar10J29qQ 7INCD O43 CF pSs4TBqnS sum zrOdaxr soueqUeZeId y

NOLLVEOUd

40

SNOILIGNOD

Wwid3ds

3°V Pres

Zapun ssuseques Of SSUTIOSP puB Zoy sUCTPIeIICN WNL sy jo suots Taord

oq} Zepun Zt seueq 7OU TTA JuUvpuszep eu, 4uU3 SpUuTZ 3.1N0D euL

¥w3cy40

*eUD 3UNCD UT soueqUeS JO SoTATES JO UOTRUEITdXCS 38

NOILLVEOUd

UTZeq 03% PUB 03% SATINOESUCD PEeATES 8q Cf} CAL 4UNOD UO 4weEKIOSTI < uo

o

et

—

jO pouad © 104 1U2WIUOS}IGUN 104 2A}}7}UI59102) PIZ}IOYINF S1Y 10 feIIUIT) AJWIOIY 24) JO AporSM? ay) OF P2})UWO? AQaiay

% IUEPUIZ2P 244 -18yI P22ps0 Pur P2id;auO2 pue pIBsEYD se Ayn’ juepuajap 241 pa3pnipe yn02 ay) ‘y1N02 24) 0) Paseadde 10 ‘UMOYS SEM

As@NUO? 24) U1 25NFD 1UI121jjNS OU asNeI2g ‘~Par2UNOUOId 2q JOU Pinoys suaWTpA! Aym Aes OF SuiyiAur pry juepurjsap s94y)24yM PIy4SF 1/NOD 24)

2Pp0o’°s*p

(2)y26 BoT3200S ‘QT ®TITL i UOTIVTOTA Uy *AUOTSS w ZyuMOD OF TmIBAITS

Zutsn pue epoo*s*n ‘(p)(e

‘suodven snozrsSuep jo een fq soefoftdme yqueq jo seatrt Apredcef uy Zuta4qnd

pus Zup3inesse pus £F20QOL HUW jo (s)25u2)j0 ay) yo pa8seyo se pay2Au0 usaq sey 1wepurjag

JINILNIS

\

(TE

ETc WOTI00S “QT ST3H JO wOTAETOTA Uy sneneent

9 INIGNIS

2 pee T sgumnog of ALND " zx

JO 191pson /SUBOGPR Buiag 2194)

posieyosip si juepusjag “ALTINGS LON f—4

‘Pad Ju} 10) SISeQ JEM Iey & SI as9u)

ALND LON * S$ = '3HIAGNILNOD OW, 7 ey? Porysnes Buisg 11N0? ay) pur ‘A LWNS

aint aati OPAC YPAMT “fF PLS “aR “peoRUTT ARTOGT) —19SNN0D HLM ex

“J2SUNOD JO JDUE*SISSE PIAPEM VOONII9Y) 1UEPUI;IP 24) PUT 1/NOD 34) AQ pauloddr jasuno> sary

Ol peiseap IURPUsjap J9yI9yM PeyTE pur jasUNOD OF 1yBts JO URPUDJap PasIAPE NOD ayy JABMOH

TISNNOO LNOHLIM [1

ucg#uyxe]l 38

NEP siyy uo uossed ul peseadde juepuajop ay)

WUOWUOAOS 24} 10) AdUI07}F 94) JO aDUaSe/d ay) Uj

——

wild

V3ISWNOI

cr T- él | <i “ON 134200 Re 8 8 eee eee eee “

HOSdMIS ITI TIVHOIN

ROGHOT sc a

(~~ inne £0 Lins Boisw ’

"SA CUQUITY

10} qaneg VIIISIG S98°BIS perv

So rp

imwv0N3430

JO SIVEIS pany

27

NO AdO?D andi v Sv O3IsILYUaD

“499{4JO PatpHEMb 49410 40 eys

“JEW “ST 24) 0} JUsU;JWWOD pur

qwuawSpn| syya jo AdOD patji1499 &

J0A}2p MHD ayn 1eAp PRs9pIE 4) 34 - |

‘spuawwore) pur jes2UI5 Aawoy 24) JO Apoysnd 24) 0} PHIUITIWIAICS Ss9PI0 TINO OU | 5

“poyed vorreqosd 24) BupNp Bu1sINI90 VO!PjOIA F 20) VOHTEQOIG wOUvEedud

@HOAT! puke JURE eB anss; Aew ‘me Aq parijuued SutaA aly JO potuad UOHeEQosd WNUxeWw F UIYIIM JO pouad voreqosd ay) Susnp au Aue 40

18 pur ‘uoneqosd yo popad aya puasxe 40 a2Npay ‘YOIIEQaid 4O SUdL4PUaS ay) aSury> Az UuNOD 244 “pasodu aq 1uEWFPN{ S14) JO BpIs a49A94 SNOLLIONOD

2y} UO INO 325 uojeqosd Uo Fipuds Yex00 dur Teqs PBlopse Aqaiay % 1) ‘2nogE pasoduy) UO}IEQOId JO SUO!}/PU09 jeiseds ays 0} VOIIPpe uj

MRO lee TWwrouldy

Boy {Jeeda; erazeq Qmmoy ey oO] pOTIyEqNS sm Jicde: eousqueser y wi

wOLLVeOud

40

- SwO1LIGNO2

Sayan 18) 1v1934S

Bt 9461 ‘Zz Axumagez |S 22NSD sty Ey} Wepuszep pres wo pesods; useue

©2 SA}INISSUSD PELs Sq 63 SSCUDQIES GnegE Ey} 4 —

onl

uno Suva 2INILNIS

Su yO) uO Suvan (Sz) a A

JO Pojsed & 10) JUSWUOS)JdW) 10) BALE} UESEId0) Pe7}JOYINF 6/4 20 [PIBUED Agwioriy 24) JO Aporsn> ayi 01 penijwwo> Aqasey

$| JURPUEsEp ays :1eyI PesePsO PUR Pai2/AUOD pu paBsEYy> se AIA’ jUEpUajap ay) pafpnipe 1n0? ay) ‘14N02 24) 07 Paseadde 40 ‘UMOYS SEM

AsU13U0? 94) 0} B5NED 3U9/21jjNS OU BSNEI2g ‘perUNOUOI aq 10U PyNoYs quowSpn{ Aym Axes 07 BuyyiAue pey juepurjap s2yI2yM Pryse AME? PY,

—-.

78S

‘eI eTIFL JO a¥[ey4 uy ‘AseTeaz © ayuDO e3 ih ton

£23835 pear (P)(*) Sees *8I ®T3tL 7° a uy *suodwen ) in3zwocnr

zo een {de mEq 70 S8ATT { wy Bxyaand @ ONIONS

puy Suy3 nesses pus Areqqos quag 0 (s)asuayjo 94) yO paBueyo se P212/AUOd udaq sey JUePUIaG

Z pee sqmo) ALUNS x yO 19)ps0s/MODOS Busag asoyy

pesseyrsip s| 1UPPUg=EG ‘ALTIND LON [7

"Pod uy 104 S1SPQ jENIIE, & S| 9194)

—s ‘ , vale

ALINDLON' ¥X 3Y3GN3ILNOD OTON | Tey) Posies Bulag 1uN0d ay) puke “ALTIND [7

See Se @ eee SSeS ewww Ip *feseBiy PExy VISNNOOHLIM Ty!

*J@SUNOD JO GOUTIS/SSE POA/EM VOONI/94) JURPUSJIP GY) PUF LINO? 94) Aq pajujodde jesunos sary

0} pPesjsep JURPUdJEP s0yI9yYM PENSE PUT jetUNE?D OF 1yBjs JO JURPURJOP PesjAPE jIPOD By) J8ABMO}H TISNNOO LNOHLIM 138NN02

ao duyxe] 3

9L6T *9z fomaqal —- JIEP siy) UO UOSIOd Uy Paseadde yURPUdjIP a4)

wvaAa Avo HINOW WUSWUJBAOB 24} 40) ADUI0}IF 24) JO B9UASEId 94) UY}

7TrTrTrTyFVtTeFIrIITtYF

*)4ANOD 20}298}C 809874 poryUy a

LOD 10 §761°-)7 Uuenigess

At ™ 33 ne ‘*a¢ ‘ugyeudoy *) pxeuzed —

AGAUVIPH “1 SIAVO +t ,

ny noon =]! 407 Ral C [4] 4 sveemisen sn

} 9Lb1 92 834 / Uv sqorr BEIHO SN Zz

AS GBNOIS

| —oe sale

“sONpjO PrHpiyeNd s9yI0 49 (PYS

JPW ST ayl OF luUawWI}IwWwO? pur cainaaaian

wuawSpal sry, po ADO? paisa? & . eTQT rh 12 usym

J2AN9P YA2D FUL IFUL Pasapio % 14 a[os od A0j peseptTsuod eq 30UuU AUuUBPUsTJep 3xyQ IBY

*spuswwors) pur jtiauay AdUJOIIY 241 yO Apo}sN? ay) OF JUOUWI}/WIWOD S49P10 YIN? 2yL <

ae UONPQOId ayn BUyINp BUILIND»O VONF/OI & IN) VOHIFQNIG NOULVEOud

240.2) pu? juries & andy Amu mt; Aq pariwiad sirad a1) JO poriad uoneqod wawyerw & Uiyim 10 porad YOrFQold By) RulINp du) AUP 40

If pur ‘YoNrFQnid 4O Porad By) PUrIK® 40 BINDS, ‘woreQoid jo sum /puor dy) aBurYys Aew NOD Nye 8Q 1uaWRPN! 41 JO apis 241000)

2Y) UO INO 125 UOHIFQOId 40 SUONI/PUO? ;Rs9UAT OYT IYI P222P19 AQoray 4 1] "BAOQE PeTOdU UO/IPQOId jo HUO})/pUOr [P/rOds By) OF UO!L!/PPF vj SNOILIONOD

WwwHouldov

| *sousjues jo

uoTzTSOdwt e10jeq 31N0D 8Yy3 OF pe aItwans sem j10de1 souUaQqUesald Yy

NOUVEOUd

40

SNOLLIONOD

*lapunsisy soueqQUdS Wid3ds

O23 S®UT[IX®P puke Ady SUOTI92I10D YANO, [eAepay vuA Jo suoTsTAord

943 Wory JFJEUSG JOU TT FM JUePUSTep 9YQ ABYQ SpuUTZ 3ANOD sy]

— °/8-SZ 2equmu TwUTWTAD UOpUCT

UT 9/61 ‘z AzeNAQGey UO 3AN0D sty UT WepUszep pTes UO pesoduwt

@1OJOJ@ABY BoUsQUaS BY OF SATINBSUOD PaAIes eq 02 PUP ABYQOUF BUC wa0u0

03 BSATANVGSUOD PaArVsS 9q 03 SadUeQUaS BACQE UT AuUeUUOSTAduW] NOlLVEOUd

rT

om], qUNoD UO SYVIA (OT) NAL ’ ——

eug qunoD UO SuVFA (¢Z) JAIA ALNIML

yO Pojsad & 104 1UsWUOS) dw) 10) BAl}E}URSEId8) Per iOYINE Hy 10 fesOUED AsuJOI)Y 04) JO Apoisn> Oy OF Peiljuwor Aqosay

% IUEPUDJOP OY, -IFYI PeJ2PI0 PUP Pai>AUO? PUF PoBIFY? oF Anin® juepusjap oy) pafpnipe 11n02 ou) ‘140? Oy) 61 pesadde 10 ‘UMOYS fem

AsO s1UOD 9Y) OF BSNED 1U91915jNS OU asNer2g Ps2rUNOUNI dy 1OU Pinoys juawEpnl Aym Aes 09 SuryiAue pey lUPpUdsIp s24194Y* PI4SE 12ND FuL =

—-—

QI FLATL JO uoT_AeTOTA ut ‘fAuO]DJ & ATuWOD 03 WIRaATJ BuTsN fepoy

seqeqys peatun ‘(P)C(B)ETIZ YOTI22eSg ‘ET PTITL JO uoTAeTOTA ut ‘suodvam <

snoiaSuep jo esn Aq soofotdwo yueq jo saat], Apavdoal ut Burqqnd

pue SuTq[Nesse pue Araqqoi YUL — 40 (s)2%UIyjo ay) Jo PaTsEYD se payr1AUOD Udaq sey JURPUD2G

Anawoonr

@ ONIONS

Zz pue [ squnos ‘ALND II

X JO 121Psoa/ByrpUN? Bulag soy)

posueyrsip ss jurpuxjog “ALTIND LON TO4 elicited

*wajd ayy 404 StSeQ jENIICy & S! 8194)

ALND LON! Xx “JYJONILNOD OIONT 71 WY) PIysies Buidg YN? dy) pue ‘ALND S41

vid

(j2suno? jo awrn)

cca eee Gow eee ewee = JIOWT ITA yzaqoy | TWSNNODHLIMT y

‘JOSUNOD JO BDULISISSE Paniem VOUNIIIY) IUPPUj IP 24) PUF 14NOD dy) Aq Paiulodde jasuUNOD sary

©} Pes[sap JUEPUDjIP 4924I24* Pay_se PUP j9sUNOD OF YR) JO UNPUI)>IP PaJAPe TNO? ay) JdAIMOH V3SNNOD LNOHLIM 74 V3SNNOD

uo z3uTxe] 3e

9461 ‘7zZ Arenaqgosy —~<}- DEP siy) UO UOSIOd UI poseadde jURpUdjap 24)

wYBA Ava HLNOW |. nih yUIWUJIAOT Jy) 10) AdU10) 12 JY) JO B9UdSIId Jy) UY

ae 2 Oe ee el ee L

OR Re ee

Ae vie sh ale wh wh e's Sb os se te le te to Sw

‘ae i six. a “- °F PY; 92" SIT “9,1 Ne oe OO a et etna halt be Vet Bates —_——-oET er

PUAN LANAI GOS CAE NEUE

--- —— —- ee ee ee --

t 98-SZ 1 =< ‘ON 13200 joo nen ee ere 4

NOGNOT as NOSdHNIS 3a°T THAVHOIN 1NVON3430

. smnisee 20 Jl aiaie Mus CU eer ee eee .

40j zANOD PIAISIC ad ee | jruig. “SA POHIHUY JO SDITIS Paul

‘ @c.

29

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 76-1459, -1460, -1465, -1466

ieee

Nos. 76-1459 & -1466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v8

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Nos. 76-1460 & -1465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

ORDER—Filed Oct. 14, 1976

Before WEICK, PECK and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral

arguments of counsel we are of the opinion that the de-

fendants were properly charged with the armed robbery

of two banks, on different occasions, and were convicted

by juries in two trials, and they received consecutive

sentences for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and 18

U.S.C. § 924(e).

The two statutes, in our opinion, relate to separate

offenses involving different elements, and they are not

duplicitous. United States v. Crew, —— F.2d (4th

Cir. No. 75-1581, 1976). Perkins v. United States, 526

Sites RSA.

at

30 31

F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1976). The District Court was not UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

required to impose concurrent sentences for the two sepa- FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

rate bank robberies nor under the two statutes.

Finding no prejudicial error either in the convictions Nos. 76-1459, -1460, -1465, -1466

or in the sentences, it is ORDERED that the judgments

of conviction be and they are hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED By ORDER OF THE COURT. Nos. 76-1459 & -1466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

/s/ John P. Hehman

MICHAEL L&E SIMPSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Nos. 76-1460 & -1465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs

TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

ORDER—Filed Nov. 9, 1976

Before WEICK, PECK and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

Upon consideration it is ORDERED that the petition

for rehearing be and it is hereby denied.

ENTERED By ORDER OF THE COURT.

/s/ John P. Hehman

Clerk

32

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 76-5761

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON and TOMMY WAYNE SIMPSON,

PETITIONERS

Vv.

UNITED STATES

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ON CONSIDERATION of the motion for leave to

proceed herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for

writ of certiorari, it is ordered by this Court that the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same

is hereby, granted; and that the petition for writ of

certiorari be, and the same is hereby, granted. The case

is consolidated with No. 76-5796 and a total of one hour

is allotted for oral argument.

April 18, 1977

Wien ns ‘

33

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 76-5796

MICHAEL LEE SIMPSON, PETITIONER

Vv.

UNITED STATES

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ON CONSIDERATION of the motion for leave to

proceed herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for

writ of certiorari, it is ordered by this Court that the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same

is hereby, granted; and that the petition for writ of

certiorari be, and the same is hereby, granted. The case

is consolidated with No. 76-5761 and a total of one hour

is allotted for oral argument.

April 18, 1977

W sv. &. GOvERNmENT Peimtine ofrice: 1977 236925 16