Hall v. United States
Citation | 330 F.2d 558 |
Decision Date | 22 May 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 20631.,20631. |
Parties | L. Buford HALL, L. Felton Hall, and Ernest W. Hall, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Wesley R. Asinof, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Bobby C. Milam, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Bobby C. Milam, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before MARIS,* GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
The three appellants were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted under a four count felony indictment in the Northern District of Georgia. Count I charged them with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111. Count II with the possession, custody, and control of an unregistered distillery, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601(a) (1); Count III with making and fermenting mash on premises other than a registered distillery, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601(a) (7); and Count IV with possession of a quantity of non-tax paid distilled spirits, 26 U.S. C.A. § 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) (1). Pursuant to the finding of guilt on all counts, Buford Hall was sentenced to a period of five years, Felton Hall to a period of four years and Ernest Hall to a period of two years. Summarized generally, the appellants claim error in the Court's charge with respect to the use of a deadly weapon, failure to define or charge on the rule of self-defense, and the charge of the Court as to the presumption arising from the presence of the defendants at the distillery in question.
Upon a careful review of the record, we have reached the firm conclusion that each of the defendants was lawfully convicted under Counts I and IV of the indictment. The sentences imposed do not exceed the maximum that could have been imposed under either Counts I or IV. In view of the foregoing conclusion, it is not necessary to reach a decision as to the errors alleged with respect to the proof and conviction under Counts II and III. Morales v. United States (5th Cir. 1956), 228 F.2d 762; Walker v. United States (5th Cir. 1960), 285 F.2d 52; Gorman v. United States (5th Cir. 1963), 323 F.2d 51.
The judgment is affirmed.
* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Miller
...United States v. Holt, 333 F.2d 455 [2d Cir., 1964], cert. den. 380 U.S. 942, 85 S.Ct. 1020, 13 L.Ed.2d 961 [1965]; Hall v. United States, 330 F.2d 558 [5th Cir., 1964], cert. den. 380 U.S. 942, 85 S.Ct. 1021, 13 L.Ed.2d 962 [1965]; Sparks v. United States, 358 A.2d 307 [D.C.App., 1976]; Sc......
-
Price v. United States
...U.S. 640, 642, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489; Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146-147, 12 S.Ct. 169, 35 L.Ed. 966; Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 330 F.2d 558; United States v. Warren, 7 Cir., 259 F. 2d 142, 143; Yielding v. United States, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 46, 48; Myres v. United St......
-
Maddox v. United States, 21189.
...sentence of two years was below the maximum that could have been imposed on the remaining counts in the indictment. See Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 558. The judgment is ...
-
Milam v. United States, 21713.
...judgment must be affirmed. Barenblatt v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 109, 115, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115, 1122; Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 558.1 Appellant's objections pertaining to the United States Attorney's argument to the jury and to the admission in evidence o......