U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

United States v. Henley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 9, 1974

502 F.2d 585; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6568 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John D. Shofi, Tampa, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Henley., Raymond E. LaPorte, Tampa, Fla., for Rutkowski., John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., D. Frank Winkles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Hernandez (9th Cir. 2007)
United States v. Silla (9th Cir. 1977)
United States v. Crittenden (5th Cir. 2024)
United States v. Crittenden (5th Cir. 2024)
United States v. Cortez Terrail Hodges (11th Cir. 2015)
United States v. Marcos Alonzo Hernandez (9th Cir. 2007)
Taylor v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ct. App. 1998)
United States v. Northrop (District Court, W.D. New York 1997)
United States v. Anello (1st Cir. 1985)
United States v. Israel Alvarez, Sr., Monolo Alvarez, Rafael Alvarez, Harry Bosquet, Jose Antonio Leyva, Israel Alvarez, Jr. (11th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Mark Allan Pirolli, Jose Galardo, Terry Otalora (11th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Cesar Augusto Correa-Arroyave (11th Cir. 1983)
United States v. John Austin Hirst, Bobby Leon Russell, Jimmy Lavon Dozier, David Kim Lockart, Leslie M. Crutchfield (11th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Seni (4th Cir. 1981)
United States v. Johnnie William Ivey and Joseph Taglione (5th Cir. 1977)
United States v. Benjamin Franklin Sherriff, Harles Junior Fyffe, A/K/A Joe Fyffe, Randall Guy Brady and Albert Mason (5th Cir. 1977)
Nelson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial defendants were convicted of importation and possession with intent to distribute 14,550 pounds of marijuana. 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(2) and 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) (B). We have examined the briefs and record in respect to the errors assigned on this appeal. None of these points warrants disturbance of the District Court decision. The prosecutor’s statements, acts, and conduct were in reply to defense arguments, and were, in totality, not unfairly *586prejudicial to defendants. See United States v. Rhoden, 453 F.2d 598 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 2050, 32 L.Ed.2d 334 (1972).

The overwhelming evidence of possession of more than seven tons of marijuana justified the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession. See Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965).

Evidence as to defendant Henley’s reputation was properly allowed after he testified and introduced the defense of entrapment. Rocha v. United States, 401 F.2d 529 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1103, 89 S.Ct. 905, 21 L.Ed. 796 (1969).

In United States v. Gaines, 489 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. T974), we rejected the argument that the government must prove the seized marijuana was Cannabis Sativa L.

The evidence amply warrants the finding of guilt and no error of law is perceived in the trial.

Affirmed.

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