U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Francisco Marizal

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 2, 1970 · Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson

421 F.2d 836; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ellis Rubin, Miami Beach, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Michael J. Osman, Acting U. S. Atty., Jose E. Martinez, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Tavaughn Saylor (11th Cir. 2015)
Don Boyd v. State of Georgia (11th Cir. 2013)
United States v. Cani (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2008)
State v. Monroe (Iowa 1975)
State v. Brock (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)
Francisco Marizal v. United States (5th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Harold E. Mills (D.C. Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.