UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JORGE PALACIO ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 convictions of the appellants for drug-related offenses are affirmed.
Appellants were involved in the importation of marijuana into the United States. Perez and Palacio were convicted of conspiracy and importation/posses…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellants here were involved in the alleged importation by boat into the United States through Miami, Florida, of approximately 3,625 pounds of marijuana. Their appeal is joint although each has separate counsel.
Appellant Perez was convicted under 21 U.S.C.A., § 963 of conspiring to violate Title 21 U.S.C.A., § 952(a); and also on the substantive charge of illegal importation of marijuana in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A., § 952(a). The evidence was sufficient as to each of the counts. There is no merit in the claim that the jury system in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is unconstitutional. United States v. Pentado, 5 Cir., 1972, 463 F. 2d 355; United States v. Blair, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F. 2d 331; United States v. Gooding, 5 Cir., 1973, 473 F. 2d 425. Nor is there merit in the additional claim that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the jury to separate after having begun its deliberation. Tyler v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 397 F. 2d 565.
Appellant Palacio was convicted on the conspiracy count in connection with the same marijuana transaction. His assignments of error are precisely those of Perez and are likewise without merit.
Cardenas appeals from his plea of guilty to possessing marijuna in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), on the single ground that the statute is unconstitutional. This ground is without merit. United States v. Lopez and Llerena, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F. 2d 949; United States v. Mather, 5 Cir., 1972, 465 F. 2d 1035.
The convictions are Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Owen, 492 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Ricardo, 619 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Kirkland Russ Perry, 480 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Pentado, 463 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Blair, 470 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Mather, 465 F.2d 1035 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Amado Lopez and Thomas Llerena, 459 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Gooding, 473 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Tyler v. United States, 397 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1968)