United States v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 22 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 27191 Summary Calendar.,27191 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 416 F.2d 459 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel F. BROOKS, a/k/a Daniel F. Drake, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Brooks Holman, Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., Reese L. Harrison, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant urges that his conviction for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a is controlled by Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 U.S. May 20, 1969, and should be reversed.1
The evidence conclusively shows and the trial court found2 that the appellant transported the marijuana in question from the Republic of Mexico into the United States of America. No reliance was had upon the presumption arising from possession.
Affirmed.
1 Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.
2 Trial by jury was waived by both the appellant and the Government and was by the trial court who filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stuart v. United States
-
Rodriquez v. State
...the court's decision in Leary did not invalidate the statute as a whole. Walden v. United States, 5 Cir., 417 F.2d 698; United States v. Brooks, 5 Cir., 416 F.2d 459. Rather, it merely struck down the presumptive part of the statute which entitled the jury to infer that an accused knew of t......
-
United States v. Candanoza
...2 See also: Yohey v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1279; Medina v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 427 F.2d 525; United States v. Brooks, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 459. 3 See Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) and Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39......
-
United States v. Houle
...get". Under these facts, a presumption of intent is not needed; it is reasonable to infer the necessary intent. See United States v. Brooks, 5 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 459. The defendant's next three assertions of error are: (1) since the marijuana was seized at the border he could not have "br......