Biegler v. United States, 5684.
Decision Date | 13 October 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 5684.,5684. |
Citation | 86 F.2d 41 |
Parties | BIEGLER v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
William F. Waugh and J. J. Goshkin, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
M. L. Igoe, U. S. Atty., and Mary D. Bailey, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.
Appellant advances two reasons for reversal of that portion of the judgment which sentenced him to imprisonment for the violation of title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. He questions the sufficiency of the evidence which showed possession of unstamped morphine hydrochloride and heroin hydrochloride, to justify conviction under said section for receiving, etc., the drug knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported.
The authorities do not sustain appellant's position.a, b
The attempted distinction which appellant makes — namely, that the decision in Yee Hem v. U. S., 268 U.S. 178, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904, dealt with smoking opium (which is always contraband), whereas the drugs herein involved might in exceptional circumstances, so he contends, be lawfully possessed — is not recognized or sustained by other decisions.c
Appellant also assails an instruction which we quote:
The Government argues that no adequate or proper exception was taken to this charge and, moreover, that had there been timely exceptions they were not well taken.
In view of the fact that all of the product from which morphine and heroin, etc., are derived, is grown abroad, we are convinced that the statute (21 U.S.C.A. § 174) which reads:
justifies the charge which the judge gave.
a Decisions of this court: Howard v. U. S., 75 F.(2d) 562; Britton v. U. S., 60 F.(2d) 772.
b Decisions of other courts: Steinfeldt v. U. S., 219 F. 879 (C.C.A. 9); Charley Toy v. U. S., 266 F. 326 (C.C.A. 2); Acuna v. U. S., 74 F.(2d) 359 (C.C.A. 5); Rosenberg v. U. S., 13 F.(2d) 369 (C.C.A. 9); Boyd v. U. S., 30 F.(2d) 900 (C.C.A. 9); Frank v. U. S., 37 F.(2d) 77 (C.C.A. 8); Hooper v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 868 (C.C.A. 9); Colletti v. U. S., 53 F.(2d) 1017 (C. C.A. 6); U. S. v. Mule, 45 F.(2d) 132 (C. C.A. 2); Ramirez v. U. S., 23 F.(2d) 788 (C.C.A. 9); Wong Lung Sing v. U. S. (C. C.A.) 3 F.(2d) 780; Ng Sing v. U. S., 8 F.(2d) 919 (C.C.A. 9); Vachuda v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 409 (C.C.A. 2); Casey v. U. S., 276 U.S. 413, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L. Ed. 632; Gowling v. U. S., 64 F.(2d) 796 (C.C.A. 6); Parmagini v. U. S., 42 F.(2d) 721 (C.C.A. 9); White v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 870 (C.C.A. 9); Copperthwaite et al. v. U. S., 37 F.(2d) 846 (C.C.A. 6); Silverman v. U. S., 59 F.(2d) 636 (C.C.A. 1); Corrollo v. Dutton, 63 F.(2d) 7 (C.C.A. 5); Hood v. U. S., 23 F.(2d) 472 (C.C. A. 8); Borgfeldt v. U. S., 67 F.(2d) 967 (C.C.A. 9); Hood v. U. S., 78 F.(2d) 150 (C.C.A. 10).
c White v. United States (C.C.A.) 16 F. (2d) 870; Rosenberg v. United States (C.C.A.) 13 F.(2d) 369; Howard v. United States (C.C.A.) 75 F.(2d) 562; Corollo v. Dutton (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 7; Borgfeldt v. United States (C.C.A.) 67 F.(2d) 967; Hood v. United States 78 F.(2d) 150; Britton v. United States (C.C.A.) 60 F.(2d) 772; United States v. Mule (C.C.A.) 45 F.(2d) 132; Hooper v. United States (C.C.A.) 16 F. (2d) 868; Silverman v. United States (C. C.A.) 59 F.(2d) 636; Frank v. United States (C.C.A.) 37 F.(2d) 77; Ramirez v. United States (C.C.A.) 23 F.(2d) 788; Acuna v. United States (C.C.A.) 74 F. (2d) 359; Copperthwaite v. United States (C.C.A.) 37 F.(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. United States
...must also be one that shows a possession lawful under the statute. United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 144; and Biegler v. United States, 7 Cir., 86 F.2d 41." To the same effect are United States v. Cox, 2 Cir., 1960, 277 F.2d 302 (a case involving heroin) and Velasquez v. U. S., 10......
- Wolpa v. United States
-
United States v. Feinberg, 7721
...must also be one that shows a possession lawful under the statute. United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 144; and Biegler v. United States, 7 Cir., 86 F.2d 41. Both defendants next contend that the allegations of the last count, charging a conspiracy to violate the Narcotic Drugs Impo......