United States v. Alberto Lopez and Jorge Roman Torres

461 F.2d 499, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9179
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 1972
Docket71-3227
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 461 F.2d 499 (United States v. Alberto Lopez and Jorge Roman Torres) 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
United States v. Alberto Lopez and Jorge Roman Torres, 461 F.2d 499, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9179 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were indicted for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and for possession of approximately one kilogram of heroin in violation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) (1) and 844. The conspiracy count was dismissed and appellants plead nolo contendere to the possession count. Lopez was sentenced to four months in prison and Torres to six months.

Lopez and Torres assert two points on appeal, first that 21 U.S.C. § 844 is unconstitutional and secondly that they should not have been convicted pursuant to their nolo plea. In view of some doubt that presently exists as to whether a nolo plea preserves the right to appeal on certain issues, see United States v. Rosenberg, 5th Cir., 458 F.2d 1183 (1972), we shall deal with the first point. The second is meritless.

Subsequent to the filing of briefs in this case, this Court decided United States v. Lopez and Llerena, 5th Cir. 459 F.2d 949 (1972). In that case Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was challenged on the same ground that it is in the case before us, that its enactment exceeded Congress’ constitutional power by creating federal narcotics offenses that do not require proof of a specific nexus with interstate commerce as a prerequisite for conviction. This Court held the Act constitutional. The only distinction between Lopez and. Llerena and the instant case is that it involved §§ 841(a) (1) and 846 of the Act instead of § 844. This distinction is not significant. Lopez and Llerena clearly controls the case before us. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971); United States v. Nelson, 5th Cir., 458 F.2d 556 (1972).

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr.
2 F.3d 1342 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Lopez
Fifth Circuit, 1993
United States v. Weinrich
586 F.2d 481 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Herrmann
371 F. Supp. 343 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1974)
United States v. Mickey John Ryan
478 F.2d 1008 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Scott Leisner and Steven Zatsky
469 F.2d 336 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. James Patrick Hook
462 F.2d 1132 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 F.2d 499, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alberto-lopez-and-jorge-roman-torres-ca5-1972.