Smith v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Smith v. United States

441 F.2d 1155, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1971

DocketNo. 71-1157

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 1155 (Smith 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

Smith v. United States, 441 F.2d 1155, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10395 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Seymour Joseph Smith, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence. We affirm.

In 1965 Smith was convicted on his plea of guilty to the offense of purchasing heroin not in or from the original stamped package in violation of 26 U.S. C. § 4704(a). He was fined $2,000 and sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Attorney General. Only one month of the sentence was actually to be served, however; the remainder of the sentence was suspended, and Smith was placed on probation for a period of five years. In 1966 the sentencing court found Smith in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Smith was then required to serve his original sentence, which the court reduced to four years.

In 1970 Smith filed the instant § 2255 petition. As his single ground for relief he alleged that under Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1537, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, the statute under which he was convicted, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a), is unconstitutional in that the requirement that a purchase of heroin be made only in or from the original stamped package violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court denied relief. We must do likewise. The cases rejecting Smith’s Fifth Amendment contention are so numerous that the contention must now be regarded as entirely without merit. See, e. g., Morales v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 475; Wilson v. United States, 3 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 246, 247; United States v. Clark, 3 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 827, 829-830; United States v. Mosby, 8 Cir. 1970, 422 F.2d 72, 75-76; McClain v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 489, 493-494; United States v. Walker, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 876, 878-879; United States v. Castro, 1 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 891, 892-894; cf. Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610; Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283.

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Seymour Joseph Smith, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence. We affirm.

In 1965 Smith was convicted on his plea of guilty to the offense of purchasing heroin not in or from the original stamped package in violation of 26 U.S. C. § 4704(a). He was fined $2,000 and sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Attorney General. Only one month of the sentence was actually to be served, however; the remainder of the sentence was suspended, and Smith was placed on probation for a period of five years. In 1966 the sentencing court found Smith in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Smith was then required to serve his original sentence, which the court reduced to four years.

In 1970 Smith filed the instant § 2255 petition. As his single ground for relief he alleged that under Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1537, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, the statute under which he was convicted, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a), is unconstitutional in that the requirement that a purchase of heroin be made only in or from the original stamped package violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court denied relief. We must do likewise. The cases rejecting Smith’s Fifth Amendment contention are so numerous that the contention must now be regarded as entirely without merit. See, e. g., Morales v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 475; Wilson v. United States, 3 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 246, 247; United States v. Clark, 3 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 827, 829-830; United States v. Mosby, 8 Cir. 1970, 422 F.2d 72, 75-76; McClain v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 489, 493-494; United States v. Walker, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 876, 878-879; United States v. Castro, 1 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 891, 892-894; cf. Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610; Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283.

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 1155, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack