JOE LEE BAKER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 statute under which Baker was convicted is constitutional and his contention that it requires self-incrimination is without merit.
Baker pleaded guilty to selling narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a) and was sentenced under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the motion of Baker, a federal prisoner to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. We affirm.1
On June 19, 1968, Baker was convicted on his plea of guilty of selling narcotics not in or from the original stamped package, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a). He was sentenced under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4251 et seq., to an indeterminate period not to exceed five years. Baker’s contention that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional because compliance would require him to incriminate himself is without merit. Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L. Ed.2d 610; Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283. See also Salinas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F. 2d 541; Esparza v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F. 2d 690; Oyervides v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F. 2d 1209; and United States v. Walker, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F. 2d 876. The judgment is 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 Appellant Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1970)
- Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1969)
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Walker, 414 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Esparza v. United States, 423 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Salinas v. United States, 424 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Oyervides v. United States, 423 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Thomas Moraca, Inc. v. J. B. Eurell Co., 423 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir. 1970)