Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Iley Williams, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 224 F.2d 52
June 9, 1955
Iley Williams, in pro. per., Webster W. Posey, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Hugh K. Martin and George S. Heitzler, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from the order of United States District Judge Druffel denying appellant's motion to vacate sentence has been duly heard and considered; and it appearing that appellant was convicted for violating section 2593(a), Title 26, U.S.C.A., making it a crime for a transferee of marihuana to possess that narcotic drug without having complied with the lawful requirements as to payment of tax and production of the required order forms, there is no force in the argument of appellant that the codifying Act of February 10, 1939, repealed all laws or parts of laws embodied in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act;
And it appearing after full consideration of the facts of the case that there was no arrest and seizure of appellant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the authority of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653, and in accord with United States v. Williams, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 835; Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Aquello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20; United States v. Lindenfeld, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 829; Gibson v. United States, 80 U.S. App.D.C. 81, 149 F.2d 381;
And it is so ordered.