Louis Golding v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Louis Golding v. United States

219 F.2d 109, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1955

Docket6896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 219 F.2d 109 (Louis Golding v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis Golding v. United States, 219 F.2d 109, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883 (4th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for penalties for violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. Appellant is a *110 tobacco farmer who, because of his failure to report the disposition of his crops, had an acreage allotment of zero for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. There was evidence which justified the findings of the court below that appellant raised and sold flue cured tobacco in the years in question in the amount found by the court. The penalty based on price was established by regulations contained in the Federal Register. Appellant complains of the refusal to continue the case, but this was clearly a matter resting in the discretion of the trial judge and there is no showing that the discretion was abused. He complains, also, because the court considered marketing quota regulations, which were contained in the Federal Register but were not introduced in evidence. It is clear, however, that the court could take judicial notice of these regulations. 44 U.S.C.A. § 307; Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10. There was no error and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for penalties for violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. Appellant is a *110 tobacco farmer who, because of his failure to report the disposition of his crops, had an acreage allotment of zero for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. There was evidence which justified the findings of the court below that appellant raised and sold flue cured tobacco in the years in question in the amount found by the court. The penalty based on price was established by regulations contained in the Federal Register. Appellant complains of the refusal to continue the case, but this was clearly a matter resting in the discretion of the trial judge and there is no showing that the discretion was abused. He complains, also, because the court considered marketing quota regulations, which were contained in the Federal Register but were not introduced in evidence. It is clear, however, that the court could take judicial notice of these regulations. 44 U.S.C.A. § 307; Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10. There was no error and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 109, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-golding-v-united-states-ca4-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack