MAYO

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959)
  …nviction, 248 F. 2d 295, and certiorari was sought on the sole ground that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment1 and therefore the use of the heroin in evidence vitiated the conviction. We granted the writ to determine that question. 357 U. S. 935. [*309] The evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to suppress was not substantially disputed. It established that one Marsh, a federal narcotic agent with 29 years’ experience, was stationed at Denver; that one Hereford had been engaged as a…
• Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1959)
  …t be lawfully convicted under both subsections (c) and (d) of § 2113, i. e., of feloniously receiving and feloniously taking the same property. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 251 F. 2d 69. We granted certiorari (357 U. S. 935) because of an apparent conflict between that decision and the Prince case. I. There is a preliminary question of jurisdiction. Petitioner is now in custody under the 10-year sentence which admittedly is valid. Since he has not completed that sente…
• Harris v. United States, 359 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1959)
  …alidity of the instructions but also on the consecutive sentences. The [*21] Court of Appeals affirmed, 248 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 8th Cir., 1957). In view of the importance of the question in the enforcement of the narcotic laws, we granted certiorari. 357 U. S. 935 (1958). We agree with the Court of Appeals. This disposition requires neither a detail of the facts which may be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, supra, nor of the court’s instructions, of which petitioner now complains.3 Congress pro…