Gilberto Garza Vela v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Gilberto Garza Vela v. United States

292 F.2d 266, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4007

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1961

Docket18480

StatusPublished

This text of 292 F.2d 266 (Gilberto Garza Vela 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

Gilberto Garza Vela v. United States, 292 F.2d 266, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4007 (5th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only new matter raised on appellant’s petition for rehearing is a contention that the evidence is insufficient to show that the marijuana involved had been unlawfully imported into the United States. This goes only to the offense charged in Count 1 of the indictment. It is not necessary for us to consider this contention in view of the fact that the sentences of five years each imposed on Counts 1 and 2 are to run concurrently. And a sentence of five years with respect to Count 2 would be authorized.

“Since the sentences of three months each imposed by the district court on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently, it v/ill be unnecessary to consider questions raised with respect to the first count if we find that the conviction on the second count, for violation of the curfew order, must be sustained.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1378, 87 L.Ed. 1774.

See also Lawn v. United States, 1958, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321.

The Petition for Rehearing should be and is

Denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only new matter raised on appellant’s petition for rehearing is a contention that the evidence is insufficient to show that the marijuana involved had been unlawfully imported into the United States. This goes only to the offense charged in Count 1 of the indictment. It is not necessary for us to consider this contention in view of the fact that the sentences of five years each imposed on Counts 1 and 2 are to run concurrently. And a sentence of five years with respect to Count 2 would be authorized.

“Since the sentences of three months each imposed by the district court on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently, it v/ill be unnecessary to consider questions raised with respect to the first count if we find that the conviction on the second count, for violation of the curfew order, must be sustained.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1378, 87 L.Ed. 1774.

See also Lawn v. United States, 1958, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321.

The Petition for Rehearing should be and is

Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 F.2d 266, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilberto-garza-vela-v-united-states-ca5-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack