Ruben Velez v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Ruben Velez v. United States

397 F.2d 788, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6528

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1968

Docket25014_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 397 F.2d 788 (Ruben Velez 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

Ruben Velez v. United States, 397 F.2d 788, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6528 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The issues presented by this appeal from a narcotics conviction have been resolved by prior Fifth Circuit decisions. At the trial, an informer testified as to transactions between appellant and himself and w’as corroborated by a policeman, who, with the informer’s permission, overheard one transaction by means of an electronic transmitting device concealed on the informer’s person and another by means of an extension phone. The argument that the use of an electronic transmitter or extension phone in this manner is forbidden by Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, has been considered and rejected. Dryden v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 214 [March 22, 1968]; Handsford v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 373, cert, denied, 88 S.Ct. 810, (U.S. May 20, 1968); Dancy v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 370. Appellant’s remaining contention that he was entrapped as a matter of law is also without merit. Examination of the record convinces us that under the standards of Beatty v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 181, 186, the district court correctly submitted the issue to the jury and further that the jury could reasonably have concluded there was no entrapment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The issues presented by this appeal from a narcotics conviction have been resolved by prior Fifth Circuit decisions. At the trial, an informer testified as to transactions between appellant and himself and w’as corroborated by a policeman, who, with the informer’s permission, overheard one transaction by means of an electronic transmitting device concealed on the informer’s person and another by means of an extension phone. The argument that the use of an electronic transmitter or extension phone in this manner is forbidden by Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, has been considered and rejected. Dryden v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 214 [March 22, 1968]; Handsford v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 373, cert, denied, 88 S.Ct. 810, (U.S. May 20, 1968); Dancy v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 370. Appellant’s remaining contention that he was entrapped as a matter of law is also without merit. Examination of the record convinces us that under the standards of Beatty v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 181, 186, the district court correctly submitted the issue to the jury and further that the jury could reasonably have concluded there was no entrapment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 F.2d 788, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruben-velez-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack