Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

469 F.2d 336

Docket No. 72-2325

United States v. Leisner

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 2, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1972.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-11-02

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1974

5 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · United States v. Lopez · United States v. Mather

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-11-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, Fla., for Leisner.

¶3Harvey S. Swickle, Miami Beach, Fla., for Zatsky.

¶4Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶5Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8Appellants were convicted of violation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. The sole contention on appeal is that the Act is unconstitutional because it fails to require proof of a specific connection between the prohibited drugs and interstate commerce as a prerequisite for conviction. This identical contention has been considered and rejected by us several times. See United States v. Lopez, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 949; United States v. Lane et *337al., 5 Cir., 1972, 461 F.2d 343; United States v. Lopez, et al., 5 Cir., 1972, 461 F.2d 499; United States v. Mather, 5 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 1035.

¶9Affirmed.

/469/f2d/336 · .json · Public domain