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
Augustin R. Bourbois, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 530 F.2d 3
April 16, 1976
Augustin R. Bourbois, pro se.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Acting on information provided by a previously reliable informant, Drug Enforcement Administration Agents arrested appellant Augustin Bourbois in Penitas, Texas and seized some three hundred thirty-three pounds of marijuana from his car. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, his motion to suppress having been denied, Bourbois was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This court summarily affirmed the conviction on appeal in an unpublished decision.
Thereafter appellant filed a § 2255 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. He alleged that the government's failure to provide him with the identity of the informant violated his right of confrontation, was a denial of due process, and constituted plain error. The district court denied relief. We affirm.
The government is not required to disclose the identity of an informant who is a mere tipster and not an active participant in the offense charged. United States v. Clark, 482 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Herrera, 455 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Mendoza, 433 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 953, 28 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971).
AFFIRMED.