Henry C. Ramos v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Henry C. Ramos v. United States

432 F.2d 423, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 1970

Docket22550

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 423 (Henry C. Ramos 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

Henry C. Ramos v. United States, 432 F.2d 423, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7171 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Convicted under three counts of an indictment charging (1) sale of heroin, (2) receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation of heroin, (both violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174) and (3) sale of heroin without obtaining a written order form (a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a)), Ramos appeals. Sentences were five years on each count, all concurrent. We affirm.

A narcotics agent testified that, accompanied by an informer, he went to Ramos’ apartment and bought heroin from him. Ramos called a woman to the stand and offered to prove by her that she recognized the agent as a person who, according to a bartender or bar owner, had passed some bad checks. The court rejected the offer. This ruling was clearly proper. Thurman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 205. See also United States v. Norman, 9 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 73, 77.

Counsel Urges that Ramos should have been certified as an addict, under 18 U.S.C. § 4251 et seq., rather than given a straight prison sentence. To this, there are two answers. First, the record does not show that Ramos is an addict. It contains only his trial counsel’s assertion of belief that Ramos is an addict. As the court remarked, Ramos denied this. Second, and assuming that Ramos is an addict, he is not, as a seller of heroin, an “eligible offender” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 4251(f) (2). There is no showing that the sale was for the primary purpose of obtaining the narcotic that he required because of his claimed addiction. We see noth *425 ing unconstitutional in this provision. Ramos is not being punished for addiction, as was the defendant in Robinson v. California, 1962, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758. He is being punished for selling heroin. Cf. Powell v. Texas, 1968, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Convicted under three counts of an indictment charging (1) sale of heroin, (2) receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation of heroin, (both violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174) and (3) sale of heroin without obtaining a written order form (a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a)), Ramos appeals. Sentences were five years on each count, all concurrent. We affirm.

A narcotics agent testified that, accompanied by an informer, he went to Ramos’ apartment and bought heroin from him. Ramos called a woman to the stand and offered to prove by her that she recognized the agent as a person who, according to a bartender or bar owner, had passed some bad checks. The court rejected the offer. This ruling was clearly proper. Thurman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 205. See also United States v. Norman, 9 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 73, 77.

Counsel Urges that Ramos should have been certified as an addict, under 18 U.S.C. § 4251 et seq., rather than given a straight prison sentence. To this, there are two answers. First, the record does not show that Ramos is an addict. It contains only his trial counsel’s assertion of belief that Ramos is an addict. As the court remarked, Ramos denied this. Second, and assuming that Ramos is an addict, he is not, as a seller of heroin, an “eligible offender” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 4251(f) (2). There is no showing that the sale was for the primary purpose of obtaining the narcotic that he required because of his claimed addiction. We see noth *425 ing unconstitutional in this provision. Ramos is not being punished for addiction, as was the defendant in Robinson v. California, 1962, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758. He is being punished for selling heroin. Cf. Powell v. Texas, 1968, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 F.2d 423, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-c-ramos-v-united-states-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack