EARNIE LEE HENDERSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
OLIN G. BLACKWELL, WARDEN, U. S. PENITENTIARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the statutes under which the appellant was convicted do not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and his sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.
Appellant challenged his convictions for violations of Internal Revenue liquor laws, arguing the statutes violated his Fifth Amendment rights and his …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate judgments and sentences, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.1
The appellant challenges his convictions for ten separate violations of the Internal Revenue liquor laws on two grounds: (1) that the statutes under which he was convicted are violative of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and (2) that his sentence is in excess of the statutory maximum.
The first contention raised by the appellant is without merit. We have consistently rejected the argument that the registration and taxation statutes governing distilleries and distilled spirits amount to unconstitutional self-incrimination since the alcohol tax laws are essentially non-criminal revenue measures. United States v. Johnson, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 332; Thornburg v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F. 2d 1060; Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F. 2d 769, certiorari denied 1969, 394 U.S. 962, 89 S.Ct. 1314, 22 L.Ed.2d 564.
Appellant’s allegation that he was sentenced to a term beyond the legal maximum is equally untenable. An independent examination of the appellant’s criminal record, which includes his judgment and commitment papers, disclose beyond a doubt that none of the sentences imposed upon the appellant exceeded the statutory maximum.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this' Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Walker, 453 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Brown v. United States, 401 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Thornburg v. United States, 406 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Johnson, 417 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Gair v. Gill, 394 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1969)
- Brown v. United States, 394 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1969)