Edgar Sparks v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Edgar Sparks v. United States

394 F.2d 814, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6941

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1968

Docket24599

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 814 (Edgar Sparks 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

Edgar Sparks v. United States, 394 F.2d 814, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6941 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sparks was convicted under three counts of an indictment charging him with violating the Internal Revenue Code. One count charged him with possession of an unregistered distillery in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5179; another with carrying on the business of a distiller without bond in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601(a) (4); and still another with working at a distillery upon which no sign denoting a registered distillery had been posted, see 26 U.S.C.A. § 5681(c).

The appeal is based on the sole contention that the evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction. We reject this contention. The evidence was entirely sufficient. There was testimony that Sparks was seen carrying sugar from a truck owned by him to the stills and was also seen putting sugar in one of the still vats. There were two 588 gallon stills in which mash was set up. Sparks was seen stirring the mash.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Sparks was convicted under three counts of an indictment charging him with violating the Internal Revenue Code. One count charged him with possession of an unregistered distillery in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5179; another with carrying on the business of a distiller without bond in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601(a) (4); and still another with working at a distillery upon which no sign denoting a registered distillery had been posted, see 26 U.S.C.A. § 5681(c).

The appeal is based on the sole contention that the evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction. We reject this contention. The evidence was entirely sufficient. There was testimony that Sparks was seen carrying sugar from a truck owned by him to the stills and was also seen putting sugar in one of the still vats. There were two 588 gallon stills in which mash was set up. Sparks was seen stirring the mash.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 814, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgar-sparks-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack