Maurice Deans v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Maurice Deans v. United States

374 F.2d 284, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 70, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1966

Docket20238_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 284 (Maurice Deans v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice Deans v. United States, 374 F.2d 284, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 70, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of transferring marihuana unlawfully, 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a), and of obtaining marihuana without prepayment of the tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a), and was sentenced to ten years on the first, and five years on the second conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. We find no grounds for reversal.

Only one matter revealed by the record deserves comment. A Bureau of Narcotics agent testified at trial that he delivered a notice to appellant in jail that he was required to produce an official order form indicating that he had paid the tax on a transfer of narcotics. He also testified that he asked appellant whether he had paid the tax “on any marihuana he may have possessed,” and that appellant stated he was unaware of such a form and had not paid a tax pursuant to it. This testimony might raise questions under Escobedo v. State of *285 Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and Killough v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 336 F.2d 929 (1964) which were not urged at any stage until we inquired about them at oral argument. Because they were not raised below, and because the sentence imposed for failure to pay the tax is shorter than the concurrent sentence imposed for unlawful possession, we do not reach these questions. See United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of transferring marihuana unlawfully, 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a), and of obtaining marihuana without prepayment of the tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a), and was sentenced to ten years on the first, and five years on the second conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. We find no grounds for reversal.

Only one matter revealed by the record deserves comment. A Bureau of Narcotics agent testified at trial that he delivered a notice to appellant in jail that he was required to produce an official order form indicating that he had paid the tax on a transfer of narcotics. He also testified that he asked appellant whether he had paid the tax “on any marihuana he may have possessed,” and that appellant stated he was unaware of such a form and had not paid a tax pursuant to it. This testimony might raise questions under Escobedo v. State of *285 Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and Killough v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 336 F.2d 929 (1964) which were not urged at any stage until we inquired about them at oral argument. Because they were not raised below, and because the sentence imposed for failure to pay the tax is shorter than the concurrent sentence imposed for unlawful possession, we do not reach these questions. See United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 F.2d 284, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 70, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-deans-v-united-states-cadc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack