UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
AUNDRA O. MAGEE, 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 statute and regulations were not unconstitutionally vague and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper.
Appellant Magee was convicted of smuggling and conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United States after customs found $1,400 worth of undeclared cloth…
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 Corroboration Of Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Magee seeks reversal after a conviction by a jury on one count of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (1976), and an additional count of conspiracy to do so under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1976).
The evidence at trial showed that Magee, traveling in a car driven by one Jenkins, sought to enter the United States from Canada after Jenkins had told the customs inspector that they had nothing to declare. On inspection, $1,400 worth of clothes, which Magee admitted he had purchased in Canada, were discovered.
Appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the regulation of the Customs Service was so overbroad and vague as to deny him due process. Our review of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 545 and two regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 148.11 and 19 C.F.R. § 123.3, indicates no such lack of specificity or overbreadth.
Further, the District Judge did not err in admitting statements of Magee’s co-conspirator, Jenkins, and there was ample evidence to corroborate defendant’s own admissions. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.