United States v. Ted Melvin Bauguess

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Ted Melvin Bauguess

419 F.2d 125

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 1969

Docket13570

StatusPublished

This text of 419 F.2d 125 (United States v. Ted Melvin Bauguess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Ted Melvin Bauguess, 419 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Bauguess, appeals from his conviction by the district court, without a jury, on two counts charging him with the possession and sale of nontaxpaid distilled spirits in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) (1).

On appeal Bauguess initially raised two issues: (1) that the requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 5205(a) (2) that he purchase and affix tax stamps to distilled spirits violated his fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination; and (2) that the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed and sold distilled spirits in violation of statute.

At oral argument counsel frankly admitted that the first claim relating to the violation of fifth amendment rights had been foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Walden, 411 F.2d 1109 (4 Cir. June 10, 1969).

Bauguess’ second claim, that the evidence did not establish that he pos *126 sessed and sold distilled spirits, centers specifically on his allegation that the Government did not prove that the containers purchased from Bauguess contained distilled spirits. Throughout the trial the witnesses, the district attorney, the defense attorney, and the court referred to the contents of the containers as “whiskey,” “liquor,” or “nontaxpaid whiskey.” Although the precise term, “distilled spirits,” used in the statute was not used during the trial, the terms which were used have been held to be the equivalent of the statutory term. 1 The undercover agent who made the purchases from Bauguess testified that he had smelled the liquid and that it appeared to be intoxicating. There was also evidence that other officers made a check and found the contents of the containers to be nontaxpaid whiskey. We find the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to be without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Walsh, 409 F.2d 9 (4 Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Bauguess, 408 F.2d 498 (4 Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Burgess, 402 F.2d 85 (4 Cir. 1968).

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Bauguess, appeals from his conviction by the district court, without a jury, on two counts charging him with the possession and sale of nontaxpaid distilled spirits in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) (1).

On appeal Bauguess initially raised two issues: (1) that the requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 5205(a) (2) that he purchase and affix tax stamps to distilled spirits violated his fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination; and (2) that the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed and sold distilled spirits in violation of statute.

At oral argument counsel frankly admitted that the first claim relating to the violation of fifth amendment rights had been foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Walden, 411 F.2d 1109 (4 Cir. June 10, 1969).

Bauguess’ second claim, that the evidence did not establish that he pos *126 sessed and sold distilled spirits, centers specifically on his allegation that the Government did not prove that the containers purchased from Bauguess contained distilled spirits. Throughout the trial the witnesses, the district attorney, the defense attorney, and the court referred to the contents of the containers as “whiskey,” “liquor,” or “nontaxpaid whiskey.” Although the precise term, “distilled spirits,” used in the statute was not used during the trial, the terms which were used have been held to be the equivalent of the statutory term. 1 The undercover agent who made the purchases from Bauguess testified that he had smelled the liquid and that it appeared to be intoxicating. There was also evidence that other officers made a check and found the contents of the containers to be nontaxpaid whiskey. We find the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to be without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Walsh, 409 F.2d 9 (4 Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Bauguess, 408 F.2d 498 (4 Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Burgess, 402 F.2d 85 (4 Cir. 1968).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ted-melvin-bauguess-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack