Leo Shelton v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Leo Shelton v. United States

363 F.2d 506, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5447

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 1966

Docket20102

StatusPublished

This text of 363 F.2d 506 (Leo Shelton 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

Leo Shelton v. United States, 363 F.2d 506, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5447 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM:

In this narcotics case the government, at the trial, showed possession of illicit drugs. No evidence was offered to explicitly prove illegal importation. But the conviction was obtained upon the presumption set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 174. Defendant-appellant says the presumption cannot go so far as to cover the element of illegal importation. The argument has original merit, but is concluded by our decision in Brothers v. United States, 9 Cir., 328 F.2d 151. We decline to reconsider that case.

A second point is the indictment charged that on a certain date Shelton sold some heroin but did not specify to whom it was sold. Again Shelton is concluded by a prior case of this court, Robison v. United States, 9 Cir., 329 F.2d 156. See also Rivera v. United States, 9 Cir., 318 F.2d 606.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PEE CUEIAM:

In this narcotics case the government, at the trial, showed possession of illicit drugs. No evidence was offered to explicitly prove illegal importation. But the conviction was obtained upon the presumption set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 174. Defendant-appellant says the presumption cannot go so far as to cover the element of illegal importation. The argument has original merit, but is concluded by our decision in Brothers v. United States, 9 Cir., 328 F.2d 151. We decline to reconsider that case.

A second point is the indictment charged that on a certain date Shelton sold some heroin but did not specify to whom it was sold. Again Shelton is concluded by a prior case of this court, Robison v. United States, 9 Cir., 329 F.2d 156. See also Rivera v. United States, 9 Cir., 318 F.2d 606.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 506, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leo-shelton-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack