Ibrahim Alverez v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Ibrahim Alverez v. United States

426 F.2d 301

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1970

Docket25487

StatusPublished

This text of 426 F.2d 301 (Ibrahim Alverez 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

Ibrahim Alverez v. United States, 426 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was found guilty on all counts of a four count indictment. The first two counts charged him with violating Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4744(a), by possessing marijuana, without having paid the transfer tax imposed by Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4741(a), while counts Three and Four charged violations of Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4742(a) by transferring marijuana without first securing the required order form. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each of the tax counts and five years on each of the order form counts, all sentences to run concurrently.

On the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, we reverse the convictions based upon counts One and Two of the indictment. We agree with appellant’s contention that compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have exposed him to a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination within the meaning of Grosso v. United States, 1969, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed. 2d 906; Marchetti v. United States, *302 1969, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed. 2d 889; and Haynes v. United States, 1969, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed. 2d 923.

Since the United States Supreme Court determined in Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283, that Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4742(a) does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, we affirm the appellant’s conviction based on counts Three and Four of the indictment.

Perusal of the record refutes appellant’s contention that the notice and demand upon him to produce the order form was unreasonable as a matter of law. Also without merit is his allegation that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction for unlawful transfer of marijuana. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 1941, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, is clearly sufficient to support the verdicts returned on counts Three and Four.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was found guilty on all counts of a four count indictment. The first two counts charged him with violating Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4744(a), by possessing marijuana, without having paid the transfer tax imposed by Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4741(a), while counts Three and Four charged violations of Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4742(a) by transferring marijuana without first securing the required order form. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each of the tax counts and five years on each of the order form counts, all sentences to run concurrently.

On the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, we reverse the convictions based upon counts One and Two of the indictment. We agree with appellant’s contention that compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have exposed him to a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination within the meaning of Grosso v. United States, 1969, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed. 2d 906; Marchetti v. United States, *302 1969, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed. 2d 889; and Haynes v. United States, 1969, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed. 2d 923.

Since the United States Supreme Court determined in Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283, that Title 26, U.S.C., Section 4742(a) does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, we affirm the appellant’s conviction based on counts Three and Four of the indictment.

Perusal of the record refutes appellant’s contention that the notice and demand upon him to produce the order form was unreasonable as a matter of law. Also without merit is his allegation that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction for unlawful transfer of marijuana. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 1941, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, is clearly sufficient to support the verdicts returned on counts Three and Four.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibrahim-alverez-v-united-states-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack