JESUS SANCHES HERRERA, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1960-07-25
No. 16463
280 F.2d 888 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the appeal presented nothing for review because it failed to include a specification of errors as required by Rule 18.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was indicted on multiple counts of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (Jesus Sanches Herrera, also known as Jesse Herrera) and Wong Shew Moo, also known as Tommy Wong, were indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division. The indictment was in three counts. Counts 1 and 2 charged violations of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 by appellant and Wong Shew Moo. Count 3 charged a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 by appellant.

Appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, had a jury trial and was found guilty on each count of the indictment. A judgment of conviction was entered, sentencing appellant to be imprisoned five years on each count, the sentences on counts 1 and 2 to run consecutively, the sentences on counts 1 and 3 to run concurrently. This appeal is from that judgment.

Appellant’s brief does not, as required by our Rule 18, 28 U.S.C.A., contain a specification of errors relied upon. Hence this appeal presents nothing for review.1 Though not required to do so,2 we have searched the record for error and have found none.

Judgment aflirmed.

. Lemke v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F. 2d 73, 14 Alaska 587; Pinkston v. United States, 9 Cir., 278 F. 2d 833.

. See cases cited in footnote 1.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw