UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FRANCISCO MARIZAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1970-02-02
No. 27898
421 F.2d 836 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing of this fact. See Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I.

Francisco Marizal was convicted on a two count indictment for violating Sections 4704(a) and 4705(a) of Title 26, United States Code. On appeal, Marizal argues that the district court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a narcotic drug. We hold that the district court correctly took judicial notice of this fact. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion. See generally James v. United States, 5 Cir. 1922, 279 F. Ill, 112.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Mills, 463 F.2d 291 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  • United States v. Cani, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
    …cause Counts Three and Four embody conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic to the guideline applicable to Counts One and Two. See USSG § 3D 1.2(c). 5 . Heroin is a narcotic drug. See United States v. Marizal, 421 F.2d 836, 837 (5th Cir.1970) (holding that a district court correctly took judicial notice of the fact that heroin is a narcotic drug). 6 . At the previous sentencing hearing, the Court denied Cani’s objections to the Guidelines calculation. 7…
  • Marizal v. United States, 453 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1972)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw