Nailling v. United States, 8955.

Decision Date09 February 1942
Docket NumberNo. 8955.,8955.
Citation142 F.2d 551
PartiesNAILLING v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Dwayne D. Maddox, of Huntingdon, Tenn., for appellant.

Wm. McClanahan, U. S. Atty., of Memphis, for the United States.

Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the petition for rehearing, the brief in support thereof, the answer of the appellee thereto, and the reply to the brief of the appellee; on consideration whereof, it appearing that the appellant was convicted of selling narcotics in violation of Section 2554(a) I.R.C.; 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2554(a).

And it appearing that appellant has been tried twice under the indictment herein; and that the principal questions raised in the petition for rehearing were not called to the attention of the District Court, the record showing that no demurrer was filed, no application for a bill of particulars was made, no objections or exceptions were taken and no request was made to charge the jury; and it appearing that these questions were not raised at the hearing on the merits in this court, and that the judgment is not to be reversed under such circumstances unless clear miscarriage of justice is shown, Miller v. United States, 6 Cir., 300 F. 529, certiorari denied, 266 U.S. 624, 45 S.Ct. 123, 69 L.Ed. 474;

And it appearing that while the indictment charges that the sale of morphine sulphate was not made in pursuance of a written order "on a form issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue", and while Section 2554 (a) requires that such order be written on "a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary" of the Treasury, the Secretary is authorized by statute to delegate and has delegated authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to issue such order forms; Act of March 3, 1927, 44 Stat. 1381, §§ 4(a) and 4(b); Treas.Dec.No. 3999, issued March 18, 1927; Treas.Dec.No. 1 (Bureau of Prohibition), issued April 1, 1927; Act of June 14, 1930, 46 Stat. 585, § 3(b); Treas.Dec. No. 2 (Bureau of Narcotics), issued July 1, 1930; Section 2606, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code; Treas.Dec. No. 4884, issued February 11, 1939:

And it appearing that the indictment sufficiently apprised the appellant of the charge against him and is sufficiently specific to bar a second conviction for the same offense, and that there is no clear miscarriage of justice shown by the present record:

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fredrick v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 13, 1947
    ...1043, 86 L.Ed. 1749, petitions for rehearing denied, 316 U.S. 710, 711, 62 S.Ct. 1267, 86 L.Ed. 1776, petition for rehearing denied, 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 551; Minnehaha County, S. D. v. Kelley, 8 Cir., 150 F.2d 356, 359, Despite this defect in the appellants' presentation of their contention th......
  • United States v. DeBlasis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 7, 1962
    ...184 (C.A.7); Peters v. United States, 161 F.2d 940 (C.A.8), certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 860 68 S.Ct. 1525, 92 L.Ed. 1780; Nailling v. United States, 142 F.2d 551 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied, 316 U.S. 675), and the refusal of the court of appeals to consider the claim usually forecloses ente......
  • Cromer v. United States, 8536.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 20, 1944
    ...U.S. 78, 82, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630, 79 L.Ed. 1314. 4 For example, Guilbeau v. United States, 5 Cir., 1923, 288 F. 731. 5 Nailling v. United States, 6 Cir., 1942, 142 F.2d 551. Act of Dec. 17, 1914, 38 Stat. 785, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 2550 et seq., 3220 et seq.; Act of March 3, 1927, § 4, 4......
  • Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 8566.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 22, 1944
    ... ... As to this, appellant states in its brief in opposition to appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal, "We ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT