UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HERSHEL HOLLON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the paraphernalia constituted a still and venue was properly proven.
Appellant was convicted of violating federal Internal Revenue laws concerning illegal stills. The issues on appeal concerned whether the seized paraph…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Calendar Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I.
In this moonshine case, appellant was found guilty on both counts of an indictment charging violation of federal Internal Revenue laws, Sections 5179(a) and 5601(a) (1), 5601(a) (7), Title 26, U.S.C.A. The only issues on appeal are whether the paraphernalia Hollon had in his possession constituted a still and whether venue of the crime was proved.
The paraphernalia in defendant’s barn, together with the 140 gallons of rye mash in the seven 55-gallon fermenters certainly met the “set up” test of Phillips v. United States, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F. 2d 1025, a recent case in which Chief Judge Brown of this Circuit so ably discussed the statutory provisions of 26 U.S.C.A., §§ 5179(a) and 5601(a). Hollon relies upon the case of Liverman v. United States, 4 Cir., 1958, 260 F. 2d 284, but under the facts in the case at hand, Liver-man does not compel a different result.
A perusal of the entire record clearly indicates that there is no merit in appellant’s contention that venue was not proved in the district court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Liverman v. United States, 260 F.2d 284 (4th Cir. 1958)
- United States v. Hershel Hollon, 420 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1969)