Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 F.2d 631

Docket No. 146.

Davis v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 5, 1930.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1930-02-05

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1945

8 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 211

Relies on Tingley v. United States · Caldwell v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1930-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Orban Patterson, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

¶2Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Atty., William Earl Wiles, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Herbert K. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Oklahoma City, Okl.

¶3Before LEWIS, PHILLIP'S, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges'.

¶4*632PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the Harrison Narcotic Act (26 USCA §§ 211, 691-707) and on four additional counts charging sales to a named purchaser “within Oklahoma County, in the Western District of Oklahoma.”

¶6. The principal error assigned is that the indictment does not sufficiently describe the place of the commission of the offense. What we have said in Turk v. United States (C. C. A.) 38 P. 630, this day decided, controls this case.

¶7It is further argued that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction on the fifth count. We cannot consider this, because there is no bill of exceptions. Instead there is a literal transcript of all the proceedings' at the trial. Tingley v. United States (10 C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 1; Caldwell v. United States (10 C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 738, decided October 16, 1929.

¶8Judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.

¶9Affirmed.

/38/f2d/631 · .json · Public domain