Charles M. Fooshee, Jr. v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Charles M. Fooshee, Jr. v. United States

223 F.2d 261, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1955

Docket12440_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 F.2d 261 (Charles M. Fooshee, Jr. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles M. Fooshee, Jr. v. United States, 223 F.2d 261, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943 (6th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case comes on appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 imposed by Judge Boyd in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for violation of the anti-narcotic laws of the United States.

In effect, the points raised on this appeal are that a physician’s prescription for narcotics which contains on the direction of the defendant to whom the prescription was issued a false name and address, and the furnishing of a false name and address when the defendant applied for the prescription for narcotics, are not criminal acts violative of Title 18, section 494, U.S.C.A. We think the argument is not well made. A prescription for narcotics comes within the meaning of the phrase “other writings” as used in the above cited Code section. United States v. Tommasello, 9 Cir., 160 F.2d 348, affirming D.C., 64 F.Supp. 467. Cf. Hart v. Squier, 9 Cir., 159 F.2d 639; Johnson v. Warden, 9 Cir., 134 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 763, 63 S.Ct. 1320, 87 L.Ed. 1714; Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610. See also Lewis v. United States, 9 Cir., 170 F.2d 43.

Moreover, inasmuch as the appellant here did not appeal from his conviction, the motion to dismiss his present appeal is well taken for the reason that the question now raised should have been raised on a direct appeal from his conviction. See Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Goto v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 44 S.Ct. 525, 68 L.Ed. 1070.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed; and the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case comes on appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 imposed by Judge Boyd in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for violation of the anti-narcotic laws of the United States.

In effect, the points raised on this appeal are that a physician’s prescription for narcotics which contains on the direction of the defendant to whom the prescription was issued a false name and address, and the furnishing of a false name and address when the defendant applied for the prescription for narcotics, are not criminal acts violative of Title 18, section 494, U.S.C.A. We think the argument is not well made. A prescription for narcotics comes within the meaning of the phrase “other writings” as used in the above cited Code section. United States v. Tommasello, 9 Cir., 160 F.2d 348, affirming D.C., 64 F.Supp. 467. Cf. Hart v. Squier, 9 Cir., 159 F.2d 639; Johnson v. Warden, 9 Cir., 134 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 763, 63 S.Ct. 1320, 87 L.Ed. 1714; Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610. See also Lewis v. United States, 9 Cir., 170 F.2d 43.

Moreover, inasmuch as the appellant here did not appeal from his conviction, the motion to dismiss his present appeal is well taken for the reason that the question now raised should have been raised on a direct appeal from his conviction. See Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Goto v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 44 S.Ct. 525, 68 L.Ed. 1070.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed; and the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F.2d 261, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-m-fooshee-jr-v-united-states-ca6-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack