United States v. Mary Grace Westlake

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Mary Grace Westlake

480 F.2d 1225, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1973

Docket73-1402

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 480 F.2d 1225 (United States v. Mary Grace Westlake) 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. Mary Grace Westlake, 480 F.2d 1225, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a). On appeal, she raises two points, both of which we consider to be without merit.

First, she argues that the implementation of the jury selection plan for the Southern District of Florida unconstitutionally excludes Cuban immigrants and young adults from jury service. This very contention has been raised and rejected on many occasions in the past. See, e. g., United States v. Gooding, 5th Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 425; United States v. Blair, 5th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 331; United States v. Pentado, 5th Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 355. Those decisions are dis-positive of appellant’s first contention.

Secondly, appellant argues that 21 U.S.C. § 811, which empowers the Attorney General to modify the “schedules” of controlled substances and narcotics *1226 set out in 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), represents an impermissible delegation of legislative power. We decline to reach this point at the present time. Congress initially classified cocaine as a Schedule II Controlled Substance, and the Attorney General has neither rescheduled nor deleted cocaine from the list of controlled substances since the effective date of the statute. Appellant therefore has not been affected by whatever delegation of authority may be embodied in the statute.

The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a). On appeal, she raises two points, both of which we consider to be without merit.

First, she argues that the implementation of the jury selection plan for the Southern District of Florida unconstitutionally excludes Cuban immigrants and young adults from jury service. This very contention has been raised and rejected on many occasions in the past. See, e. g., United States v. Gooding, 5th Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 425; United States v. Blair, 5th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 331; United States v. Pentado, 5th Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 355. Those decisions are dis-positive of appellant’s first contention.

Secondly, appellant argues that 21 U.S.C. § 811, which empowers the Attorney General to modify the “schedules” of controlled substances and narcotics *1226 set out in 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), represents an impermissible delegation of legislative power. We decline to reach this point at the present time. Congress initially classified cocaine as a Schedule II Controlled Substance, and the Attorney General has neither rescheduled nor deleted cocaine from the list of controlled substances since the effective date of the statute. Appellant therefore has not been affected by whatever delegation of authority may be embodied in the statute.

The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F.2d 1225, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mary-grace-westlake-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack