Cecil J. Thornburg v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Cecil J. Thornburg v. United States

406 F.2d 1060, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9073

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1969

Docket26562_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 406 F.2d 1060 (Cecil J. Thornburg 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

Cecil J. Thornburg v. United States, 406 F.2d 1060, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9073 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from the judgment of the district court denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence as per Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, by letter to the Clerk he has requested that the appeal be dismissed without prejudice. This we decline to do as the case obviously has no merit and should be disposed of without further briefs or argument.

Appellant was convicted of possession of an unregistered distillery [26 U.S.C. § 5179], operating a distillery without posting bond [26 U.S.C. § 5601 (a) (4)], and unlawful production of mash [26 U.S.C. § 5222(a) (1)]. He is attacking only his conviction under § 5179, attempting to bring himself within the rule of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 *1061 (1968); and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). In Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 769, and Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 403 F.2d 206, this Court discussed this same issue, holding in these cases that the registration and tax statutes governing distilleries and distilled spirits do not impose the danger of self-incrimination.

We are bound by and in full accord with these holdings. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from the judgment of the district court denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence as per Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, by letter to the Clerk he has requested that the appeal be dismissed without prejudice. This we decline to do as the case obviously has no merit and should be disposed of without further briefs or argument.

Appellant was convicted of possession of an unregistered distillery [26 U.S.C. § 5179], operating a distillery without posting bond [26 U.S.C. § 5601 (a) (4)], and unlawful production of mash [26 U.S.C. § 5222(a) (1)]. He is attacking only his conviction under § 5179, attempting to bring himself within the rule of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 *1061 (1968); and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). In Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 769, and Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 403 F.2d 206, this Court discussed this same issue, holding in these cases that the registration and tax statutes governing distilleries and distilled spirits do not impose the danger of self-incrimination.

We are bound by and in full accord with these holdings. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.2d 1060, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecil-j-thornburg-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack