Fred Patrick Meyers v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Fred Patrick Meyers v. United States

388 F.2d 307

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1968

Docket21821

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 388 F.2d 307 (Fred Patrick Meyers v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fred Patrick Meyers v. United States, 388 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted and convicted on various counts covering the possession, concealing and sale of heroin and marijuana.

The sole question on this appeal is procedural: namely, should appellant have been sentenced for the sale and concealment of the narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 174, rather than 18 U.S.C. § 4251, et seq. There is no merit in appellant’s contention by the precise terms of the statute. Only “eligible offenders” are subject to the discretionary action of the trial judge. 18 U.S.C. § 4252. Further, the appellant was not an “eligible person” toward whom any discretion could be exercised by the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 4251(f) (4), which excludes persons convicted of two or more felonies. Here it was proved that appellant had been convicted of three felonies.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted and convicted on various counts covering the possession, concealing and sale of heroin and marijuana.

The sole question on this appeal is procedural: namely, should appellant have been sentenced for the sale and concealment of the narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 174, rather than 18 U.S.C. § 4251, et seq. There is no merit in appellant’s contention by the precise terms of the statute. Only “eligible offenders” are subject to the discretionary action of the trial judge. 18 U.S.C. § 4252. Further, the appellant was not an “eligible person” toward whom any discretion could be exercised by the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 4251(f) (4), which excludes persons convicted of two or more felonies. Here it was proved that appellant had been convicted of three felonies.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-patrick-meyers-v-united-states-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack