Augustin R. Bourbois v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Augustin R. Bourbois v. United States

530 F.2d 3, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 1976

Docket76--1108

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 530 F.2d 3 (Augustin R. Bourbois v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Augustin R. Bourbois v. United States, 530 F.2d 3, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Acting on information provided by a previously reliable informant, Drug Enforcement Administration Agents arrested appellant Augustin Bourbois in Peni-tas, Texas and seized some three hundred thirty-three pounds of marijuana from his car. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, his motion to suppress having been denied, Bourbois was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This court summarily affirmed the conviction on appeal in an unpublished decision.

Thereafter appellant filed a § 2255 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. He alleged that the government’s failure to provide him with the identity of the informant violated his right of confrontation, was a denial of due process, and constituted plain error. The district court denied relief. We affirm.

The government is not required to disclose the identity of an informant who is a mere tipster and not an active participant in the offense charged. United States v. Clark, 482 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Herrera, 455 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Mendoza, 433 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 953, 28 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Acting on information provided by a previously reliable informant, Drug Enforcement Administration Agents arrested appellant Augustin Bourbois in Peni-tas, Texas and seized some three hundred thirty-three pounds of marijuana from his car. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, his motion to suppress having been denied, Bourbois was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This court summarily affirmed the conviction on appeal in an unpublished decision.

Thereafter appellant filed a § 2255 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. He alleged that the government’s failure to provide him with the identity of the informant violated his right of confrontation, was a denial of due process, and constituted plain error. The district court denied relief. We affirm.

The government is not required to disclose the identity of an informant who is a mere tipster and not an active participant in the offense charged. United States v. Clark, 482 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Herrera, 455 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Mendoza, 433 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 953, 28 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 F.2d 3, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augustin-r-bourbois-v-united-states-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack