United States v. Box
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
530 F.2d 1258 (1976)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Henry Floyd “Red” Box (defendant) was charged by the federal government with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1955, the federal antigambling statute. The indictment followed a federal investigation of sports-betting operators, known as bookmakers, in Louisiana during the 1973 football season. As discovered by federal law enforcement, Box did not solicit bets or have customers, but he was a heavy bettor who occasionally accepted lay-off bets from bookmakers in the area. These were bets that the bookmakers made to hedge their own risk. The bookmakers sought to have equal betting on both teams in every game, because their profit came from the percentage that losing bettors were required to pay for the privilege of betting. If the betting became unbalanced, the bookmakers sometimes made bets of their own—lay-off bets—to effectively lessen their risk. The evidence at trial showed that Box occasionally accepted these lay-off bets from bookmakers Cook and Stewart, and although the bets could be substantial, they did not occur with regularity. Moreover, because the bets were intended to allow the bookmakers to hedge risk, Box sometimes received favorable odds. However, there was no evidence that the bookmakers could depend on Box to always accept such bets. There was also no evidence that Box provided gambling-related information to bookmakers. Box was convicted by a jury. On appeal, Box argued that his acceptance of lay-off bets did not support a finding that he was a bookmaker and, therefore, liable under § 1955.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.