Contreras v. United States

213 F.2d 96, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1545, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4438
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 11, 1954
Docket14674
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 213 F.2d 96 (Contreras 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
Contreras v. United States, 213 F.2d 96, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1545, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4438 (5th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment under an information charging:

“That during the month of January, 1953, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, Anastasio Humberto Contreras, who was then and there engaged in the business of accepting wagers as defined in Section 3285(b) (1) (C) and (2), Title 26, United States Code, did wilfully and unlawfully fail to register and pay the special tax required by law to be paid by him; in violation of Sections 2707, 3285, 3290, 3291, and 3294, Title 26, United States Code.”

The district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the information, his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for new trial.

Appellant’s first contention is that the penalties prescribed in 26 U.S.C.A. § 3294(c) 1 are so uncertain, vague, and indefinite as to render the section inoperative and the one year sentence void. This particular objection to the statute was not discussed in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754. Section 2707 2 referred to in said Section 3294(c), supra, prescribes penalties with respect to the tax on pistols and revolvers. Subsection (a) of Section 2707 relates to a penalty to be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, and intends a mere civil sanc *98 tion. Paddock v. Siemoneit, 147 Tex. 571, 218 S.W.2d 428, 7 A.L.R.2d 1062. Subsection (a) is therefore not pertinent here. Subsection (c) refers to “Any person required * * * to collect, account for and pay over any tax * * There was no charge that the defendant was required to “collect” or “account for” the tax. Subsection (c) covers also “any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax * * * ”, but the defendant was not so charged. Subsection (b) refers to “Any person required * * * to pay any tax,” and that subsection (b) is the only one that could apply to the offense charged against the defendant, viz: that he “did willfully and unlawfully fail to register and pay the special tax * *

The language of subsections (b) and (c) of Section 2707 closely parallels that of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 145 dealt with in Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418. The difference between the misdemeanor referred to in subsection (b) and the felony referred to in subsection (c) of Section 2707 is the same, we think, as that noted in the Spies case, supra.

“The difference between the two offenses, it seems to us, is found in the affirmative action implied from the term ‘attempt,’ as used in the felony subsection. It is not necessary to involve this subject with the complexities of the common-law ‘attempt’. The attempt made criminal by this statute does not consist of conduct that would culminate in a more serious crime but for some impossibility of completion or interruption or frustration. This is an independent crime, complete in its most serious form when the attempt is complete and nothing is added to its criminality by success or consummation, as would be the case, say, of attempted murder. Although the attempt succeed in evading tax, there is no criminal offense of that kind, and the prosecution can be only for the attempt. We think that in employing the terminology of attempt to embrace the gravest of offenses against the revenues Congress intended some willful commission in addition to the willful omissions that make up the list of misdemeanors. Willful but passive neglect of the statutory duty may constitute the lesser offense, but to combine with it a willful and positive attempt to evade tax in any manner or to defeat it by any means lifts the offense to the degree of felony.” Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, at pages 498-499, 63 S.Ct. at page 368.

This Court has already held that the offense of willful failure to pay the special tax here involved may be prosecuted by information for the reason that it “is a misdemeanor according to Section 2707 (b), Title 26 of the United States Code.” Mosely v. United States, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 908.

The defendant relies strongly upon Holmes v. United States, 5 Cir., 267 F. 529, 531, followed in Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 643, 645. but under the statutes there involved the punishment intended was left in uncertainty and to speculation, while that is not true here when the statutes are carefully read and considered. The courts must entertain a strong presumption of validity of the statute, including its penalty provisions, and must hold the statute valid as against a criticism of vagueness and uncertainty when they are reasonably sure of its meaning. United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483, 486, 487, 68 S.Ct. 634, 92 L.Ed. 823. We think it clear that, for the offense here charged, the penalty is that prescribed in Section 2707 (b), and, hence, that there is no uncertainty nor speculation.

Appellant next insists that the information quoted at the beginning of this opinion should have been dismissed on the ground that it failed to contain a sufficient statement of the alleged offense to apprise the defendant of the exact nature of the charge against him, and to enable him or his counsel to prepare a defense. Specifically, the appellant insists that the *99 term "wager” as defined in Section 3285 (b) (1) (C) and (2), Title 26, United States Code Annotated 3 and as used in the information is a generic term and that it was necessary for the information to state the particular kind of wagers accepted by the defendant. 4

Engaging in receiving wagers was not, of itself, a federal crime, but was descriptive of the occupation upon which the special tax was imposed, a willful failure to pay which was the crime against the United States here charged. It might be academically interesting to consider whether the word “wager” would have to be particularized in the absence of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Those Rules, and particularly Rules 2 and 7(c), designed to eliminate technicalities in criminal pleading and to simplify procedure, make it clear that the information was sufficient. It followed substantially the wording of the statute, embodied all the elements of the crime and sufficiently informed the defendant of the charge so as to enable him to prepare his defense, requesting a bill of particulars under Rule 7(f) if needed, and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecution for the same offense. See United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 377, 378, 74 S.Ct.

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

Related

The United States of America v. Martin Lemlich
418 F.2d 212 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Robert Frederick Huff v. United States
273 F.2d 56 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
Benjamin Franklin Neville v. United States
272 F.2d 414 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
W. T. Hagans v. United States
261 F.2d 924 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
George William Davis v. United States
253 F.2d 24 (Sixth Circuit, 1958)
United States v. Palermo
152 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)
Albert Samuel Wright v. United States
243 F.2d 546 (Sixth Circuit, 1957)
Will Parks Clay v. United States
239 F.2d 196 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
T. C. Risinger v. United States
236 F.2d 96 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Risenger v. United States
236 F.2d 96 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
United States v. Ross
135 F. Supp. 842 (D. Maryland, 1955)
J. A. Herzog v. United States
226 F.2d 561 (Ninth Circuit, 1955)
Albert Gus Hodges v. United States
223 F.2d 140 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Sulli v. United States
213 F.2d 100 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
Fernandez v. United States
213 F.2d 101 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 F.2d 96, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1545, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contreras-v-united-states-ca5-1954.