United States v. William David Rose

Fifth Circuit

United States v. William David Rose

484 F.2d 654, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1973

Docket73-1702

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 484 F.2d 654 (United States v. William David Rose) 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. William David Rose, 484 F.2d 654, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7799 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case, a jury convicted William David Rose on two counts of the knowing and intentional distribution of Schedule II and III drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, it was clearly shown that Rose wilfully aided and abetted one James Bryant in the actual distribution of the illegal products. The trial record is really devoid of any element of entrapment. Moreover, had such been the case, Rose took the witness stand and denied any participation whatsoever in the transaction. A directed verdict of not guilty could not have been justified.

Although himself denying any personal participation in the actual distribution of the contraband, Rose argued below and argues here that the proof offered on behalf of the government showed that his alleged participation was an “agent of the undercover government agent”, who actually acquired the *655 drugs. Unfortunately, it was Rose who first approached the undercover agent and inquired as to whether he would like to purchase some high quality cocaine or speed. This inquiry resulted in the visit to Bryant and the illegal distribution. This consideration aside, this is a distri-. bution case and the appellate argument is crushed beneath the weight of our recent decisions in United States v. Johnson [opinion dated July 19, 1973] 481 F.2d 645, and United States v. Miller [opinion dated August 6, 1973] 483 F.2d 61.

The judgment of conviction is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this case, a jury convicted William David Rose on two counts of the knowing and intentional distribution of Schedule II and III drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, it was clearly shown that Rose wilfully aided and abetted one James Bryant in the actual distribution of the illegal products. The trial record is really devoid of any element of entrapment. Moreover, had such been the case, Rose took the witness stand and denied any participation whatsoever in the transaction. A directed verdict of not guilty could not have been justified.

Although himself denying any personal participation in the actual distribution of the contraband, Rose argued below and argues here that the proof offered on behalf of the government showed that his alleged participation was an “agent of the undercover government agent”, who actually acquired the *655 drugs. Unfortunately, it was Rose who first approached the undercover agent and inquired as to whether he would like to purchase some high quality cocaine or speed. This inquiry resulted in the visit to Bryant and the illegal distribution. This consideration aside, this is a distri-. bution case and the appellate argument is crushed beneath the weight of our recent decisions in United States v. Johnson [opinion dated July 19, 1973] 481 F.2d 645, and United States v. Miller [opinion dated August 6, 1973] 483 F.2d 61.

The judgment of conviction is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 F.2d 654, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-david-rose-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack