U.S. v. Lurz

Decision Date11 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-5324,79-5324
Citation611 F.2d 621
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Thomas LURZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Ed Leinster, Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Gary L. Betz, U. S. Atty., John E. Lawlor, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before GEE, HENDERSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.


Raymond Thomas Lurz, appeals his conviction on one count of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 to manufacture phencyclidine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of interstate travel to promote an unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) and 2, and one count of attempt to manufacture phencyclidine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Appellant argues: (1) that he was denied a speedy trial in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., and the 6th amendment; (2) that the district court erred in permitting a codefendant to testify as to his conversations with another codefendant; (3) that the evidence established entrapment as a matter of law; (4) that he was denied a fair trial because codefendant Dennis Witt testified before the jury that he had pleaded guilty to charges arising out of the same transaction; and (5) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction on any count. The first four claims of appellant were also raised by codefendant Paul Arthur Noll, and were decided adversely to him by a panel of this court in United States v. Noll, 600 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1979). We agree and affirm those points on the basis of that decision.

Appellant's final claim is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction on any count. The facts of this criminal episode are set out in Noll. Appellant reasons that Mullins' statement to Harrell (that Mullins and others planned to make PCP) was inadmissible, so there was insufficient evidence to show that PCP was made. He argues that he, Noll, and Witt could have intended to use the chemicals present to make something else. However, Mullins' statement was properly admitted. There was sufficient evidence to show an attempt to make PCP. See United States v. Noll, at 1129. Evidence that appellant was present with Mullins to accept the PMB from Harrell, that appellant transported the PMB from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • U.S. v. Lurz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 10, 1981
    ...manufacture, and of two other offenses not pertinent here, and sentenced to three consecutive five year terms. United States v. Lurz, 611 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Issue No. 1-Lurz's double jeopardy The primary assertion of Lurz is one of double jeopardy. Lurz's contention is t......

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