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
United States of America, Appellee, v. Gregory Lamear, Donald L. Mcentire, Appellant, Phyllis Sparks
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. - 417 F.2d 626
Nov. 5, 1969
Gary T. Nelms, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant and filed brief.
James M. Gordon Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee, Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Robert C. Crimmins, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief.
Before MATTHES, BLACKMUN and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant and his codefendants Gregory Lamear and Phyllis Sparks pleaded guilty to possessing and selling a quantity of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), a 'depressant or stimulant drug' within 21 U.S.C. 321(v)(3), in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(q)(2) and 331(q)(3)(A). Lemear and Sparks did not appeal.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction contending, as he did in the district court, that 21 U.S.C. 331(q)(2) and 331(q)(3)(A), part of the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-74, 79 Stat. 232, to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. 301-392, are unconstitutional. His position is that Congress acted in excess of the power delegated to it under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution in that the amendments have the effect of regulating and proscribing intrastate transactions.
The substance of appellant's argument has been rejected by this and other courts. United States v. Funk, 412 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1969); White v. United States, 399 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1968); Whalen v. United States, 398 F.2d 286 (8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Cerrito, 413 F.2d 1270 (7th Cir., July 25, 1969); Deyo v. United States, 396 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1968); White v. United States, 395 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 260, 21 L.Ed.2d 266 (1968); United States v. Freeman, 275 F.Supp. 803 (N.D.Ill.1967).
We remain firm in our view that the law under attack is not subject to any constitutional infirmities.
The judgment is affirmed.