TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

L. Buford Hall, L. Felton Hall, and Ernest W. Hall v. United States

L. Buford HALL, L. Felton Hall, and Ernest W. Hall, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

L. Buford Hall, L. Felton Hall, & Ernest W. Hall v. United States, 330 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 22, 1964
Docket
No. 20631
Judges
Maris, Gewin, Bell
Citations
330 F.2d 558

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The three appellants were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted under a four count felony indictment in the Northern District of Georgia. Count I charged them with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 . Count II with the possession, custody, and control of an unregistered distillery, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601 (a) (1) ; Count III with making and fermenting mash on premises other than a registered distillery, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601 (a) (7); and Count IV with possession of a quantity of non-tax paid distilled spirits, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5205 (a) (2) and 5604(a) (1). Pursuant to the finding of guilt on all counts, Buford Hall was sentenced to a period of five years, Felton Hall to a period of four years and Ernest Hall to-a period of two years. Summarized generally, the appellants claim error in the Court’s charge with respect to the use of a deadly weapon, failure to define or charge on the rule of self-defense, and the charge of the Court as to the presumption arising from the presence of the defendants at the distillery in question.

Upon a careful review of the record, we have reached the firm conclusion that each of the defendants was lawfully convicted under Counts I and IV of the indictment. The sentences imposed do not. exceed the maximum that could have been imposed under either Counts I or IV. In view of the foregoing conclusion, it is not necessary to reach a decision as to-the errors alleged with respect to the proof and conviction under Counts II and III. Morales v. United States (5th Cir. 1956), 228 F.2d 762 ; Walker v. United States (5th Cir. 1960), 285 F.2d 52 ; Gorman v. United States (5th Cir. 1963), 323 F.2d 51 .

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 11965: 11967: 119642026peak 1964 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clifford David Price v. United States384 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1967)
  2. Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States337 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1964)
  3. Roy Carl Milam v. United States340 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Clifford David Price v. United States384 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1967)
  2. Roy Carl Milam v. United States340 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1965)
  3. Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States337 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Walker v. United States, 285 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1961) 24
Gorman v. United States, 323 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1963) 18
Morales v. United States, 228 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1956) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list