UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES EVERETT LITTLEPAGE, 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 conviction for smuggling marihuana and merchandise is affirmed, as the evidence was sufficient and the appellant's constitutional and procedural rights were not violated.
Appellant was convicted on two counts: smuggling marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a and smuggling merchandise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545.…
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 Smuggling Merchandise cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The conviction of appellant on a two-count indictment of smuggling marihuana and merchandise in violation of 21 U.S.C. §. 176a and 18 U.S.C. § 545, respectively, is confirmed. This decision is based on the merits of appellant’s contentions. Appellant’s contention that the United States failed to prove that he smuggled or clandestinely introduced merchandise into the United States is without merit. Sufficient evidence was before the jury upon which to base a guilty verdict on that count.
Appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the prosecution’s remark in closing argument. At most, the comment led the jury to conclude that no evidence existed to support one of the contentions of appellant and as such was a permissible argument in response to an argument raised initially by counsel for appellant.
Appellant’s contention that he was prejudiced by an “unreasonable” delay between his arrest and indictment is not supported by any evidence and is therefore without merit.
Appellant fails to show any jury error or misconduct prejudicial to his case.
An examination of the transcript does not reveal foundation for the argument that appellant’s defense counsel was ineffective. The fact that counsel was late for one hearing does not of itself show incompetence.