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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. John Lee Bowen, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, - 462 F.2d 347
Michael D. Nasatir (argued), of Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Shelby R. Gott (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and LYDICK,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
John Lee Bowen appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for violation of 21 U.S.C. 176(a) and 21 U.S.C. 331(q) (3) (B) (smuggling and transporting smuggled marijuana and possession of depressant and stimulant drugs).
While searching Bowen's rented camper for aliens, Immigration Officer Ortmeier first smelled and then found in the camper nearly 356 pounds of marijuana bricks of the type and packaged in the manner that usually comes from Mexico, along with backpacking equipment and burlap bags marked Product of Mexico. One hundred fifty-eight benzedrine tablets were found in the pocket of a jacket in the cab of the camper.
Questions raised on appeal are whether the search and seizure were lawful, whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the marijuana had been unlawfully imported by appellant and whether appellant knew it had been unlawfully imported when he transported it.
The search and seizure were plainly lawful. The circumstantial evidence of knowledge of unlawful importation on Count 2 of the Indictment, though not overwhelming, was clearly sufficient to support the jury verdict. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the smuggling charge of Count 1 need not be reached since the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 were identical and concurrent. United States v. Aranda, 9th Cir., 1972, 457 F. 2d 761.
The judgment is affirmed.