Raul Esparza v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Raul Esparza v. United States

423 F.2d 690, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10118

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1970

Docket28739_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 690 (Raul Esparza 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

Raul Esparza v. United States, 423 F.2d 690, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10118 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5th Cir. R. 18.

Raul Esparza pleaded guilty to the sale of heroin without the requisite order form, 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), and not in or from the original stamped package, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). He now appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. All his arguments regarding the presumptions and supposedly self-incriminatory aspects of those statutes have been answered by the Supreme Court in Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283, and Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5th Cir. R. 18.

Raul Esparza pleaded guilty to the sale of heroin without the requisite order form, 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), and not in or from the original stamped package, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). He now appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. All his arguments regarding the presumptions and supposedly self-incriminatory aspects of those statutes have been answered by the Supreme Court in Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283, and Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 690, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raul-esparza-v-united-states-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack