Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Charles Isia Cagle, 71-1849_1 (1971)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 71-1849_1 Visitors: 56
Filed: Oct. 29, 1971
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 448 F.2d 644 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Isia CAGLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1849 Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. September 17, 1971. Rehearing Denied October 29, 1971. Jack Gunter, Cornelia, Ga., for defendant-appellant. John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee. Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Appellant was convicted by a jury o
More

448 F.2d 644

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles Isia CAGLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-1849 Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

September 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied October 29, 1971.

Jack Gunter, Cornelia, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing property intended for use in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5686(a) (1967), towit: One 480-gallon metal tank still, ten feet more or less of rubber hose, sixty-four more or less one-gallon plastic containers, and four more or less cases of yeast. The jury determined that this paraphernalia was intended for use in making illegal whiskey.

2

Cagle asserts on appeal that (1) the guilty verdict was not supported by the evidence; (2) the district court erred in refusing his request to personally cross-examine a witness already cross-examined by his attorney; (3) certain remarks made to the jury by the prosecutor constitute reversible error; and (4) the trial judge erred in sending the jury back for further deliberation when, after two and one-half hours of deliberation, the foreman reported that they were deadlocked.

3

After carefully reading the record, we find no merit in any of appellant's contentions.

4

Affirmed.

Notes:

*

Rule 18, 5th Cir.;see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer