United States v. Francisco Marizal

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Francisco Marizal

421 F.2d 836, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1970

Docket27898_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 836 (United States v. Francisco Marizal) 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. Francisco Marizal, 421 F.2d 836, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing of this fact. See Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.

Francisco Marizal was convicted on a two count indictment for violating Sections 4704(a) and 4705(a) of Title 26, United States Code. On appeal, Marizal argues that the district court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a narcotic drug. We hold that the district court correctly took judicial notice of this fact. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion. See generally James v. United States, 5 Cir. 1922, 279 F. Ill, 112.

The judgment is affirmed.

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 this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing of this fact. See Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.

Francisco Marizal was convicted on a two count indictment for violating Sections 4704(a) and 4705(a) of Title 26, United States Code. On appeal, Marizal argues that the district court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a narcotic drug. We hold that the district court correctly took judicial notice of this fact. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion. See generally James v. United States, 5 Cir. 1922, 279 F. Ill, 112.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 F.2d 836, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-francisco-marizal-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack