U.S. v. Garcia, 76-4255
| Citation | 553 F.2d 432 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-4255,76-4255 |
| Parties | 77-1 USTC P 9456 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Y. GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
James A. Moore, Ray B. Martin, Robert C. Hunt, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant's convictions for making false statements on his tax returns are affirmed. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the indictment because the trial took place a year after arraignment, rather than within 120 days as required by the District Court's Rule 50(b) Plan for Achieving Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases of the Southern District of Texas. United States v. Clendening, 526 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1976) and United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1976). Where the four-pronged test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), is not met, dismissal is not required.
The refusal to permit defendant to introduce evidence as to what tax, if any, would be owing on the unreported income was not error. Schepps v. United States, 395 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Castellana
...refuse to dismiss the indictment in this case because of a possible violation of the Middle District's interim plan. United States v. Garcia, 553 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1977). The mere failure to comply with the time limits of a district interim plan, without more, is not a sufficient basis to ......
-
U.S. v. Wentland, 77-5423
...1977). Dismissal, however, is not required unless the four-factor test described in Barker v. Wingo, supra, is met. United States v. Garcia,553 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1977). Before the other three factors need be considered, the length of the delay must be found presumptively prejudicial. Barke......
-
U.S. v. Albert, s. 76-2560
...noncompliance therewith does not automatically result in dismissal." U. S. v. Maizumi,526 F.2d 848 (CA5, 1976); See also, U. S. v. Garcia, 553 F.2d 432 (CA5, 1977); U. S. v. Bloom, 538 F.2d 704 (CA5, 1976); U. S. v. Atkins, 528 F.2d 1352 (CA5, 1976); U. S. v. Pena, 527 F.2d 1356 (CA5, 1976)......
-
U.S. v. Kilrain
...one year after indictment. Dismissal is not required where delay is minimal and no prejudice has resulted. See United States v. Garcia, 5 Cir., 1977, 553 F.2d 432; United States v. Wyers, 5 Cir., 1977, 546 F.2d 599, 602; United States v. Maizumi, 5 Cir., 1976, 526 F.2d 848, 851; United Stat......