George Willard Shaffer v. United States

Ninth Circuit

George Willard Shaffer v. United States

435 F.2d 168

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 1970

Docket25237_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 435 F.2d 168 (George Willard Shaffer 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

George Willard Shaffer v. United States, 435 F.2d 168 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On June 28, 1965, Shaffer entered a plea of guilty to a charge of acquiring marihuana without paying the transfer tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a). Thereafter, he commenced this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the judgment of conviction. The keystone of his contention was and is that “the incriminatory portion of § 4744(a) was declared unconstitutional in Leary * * Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969). The district court denied relief and Shaffer has appealed. We affirm.

Shaffer apparently recognizes that the Supreme Court did not in Leary strike down the marihuana tax statute [26 USC § 4741(a)] as unconstitutional on its face, but he fails to realize that, having entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violating the statute, he cannot now assert that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. A fortiori, where as here, his plea was counseled. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

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

PER CURIAM:

On June 28, 1965, Shaffer entered a plea of guilty to a charge of acquiring marihuana without paying the transfer tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a). Thereafter, he commenced this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the judgment of conviction. The keystone of his contention was and is that “the incriminatory portion of § 4744(a) was declared unconstitutional in Leary * * Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969). The district court denied relief and Shaffer has appealed. We affirm.

Shaffer apparently recognizes that the Supreme Court did not in Leary strike down the marihuana tax statute [26 USC § 4741(a)] as unconstitutional on its face, but he fails to realize that, having entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violating the statute, he cannot now assert that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. A fortiori, where as here, his plea was counseled. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-willard-shaffer-v-united-states-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack