Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Fuller Holt v. United States
288 F.2d 447
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1961-04-25
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from convictions for conspiracy and various substantive counts of “moonshining”. Appellants’ principal contention is that the participation of a paid government informer in their illegal activities estops the government from prosecuting them. The record clearly establishes that the government agent did not seduce otherwise innocent persons to violate the law. See Park v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fuller Holt v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
HOLT v. UNITED STATES,288 F.2d 447(5th Cir. 1961)
Fuller HOLT et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellees.
No. 18510.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 23, 1961.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1961.
J. Robert Sparks, Asst. U.S. Atty., William C. O'Kelley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charles D. Read, Jr., U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
Before RIVES, BROWN, and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
Appellants' principal contention is that the participation of a paid government informer in their illegal activities estops the government from prosecuting them. The record clearly establishes that the government agent did not seduce otherwise innocent persons to violate the law. See Park v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960,283 F.2d 253. Rather, the informants' participation in their illegal activities was at the behest of the defendants in each instance. What the government paid for, and what it received in this case was information. We find nothing in the eliciting and utilization of this information which should estop this prosecution.
Appellant, Mrs. E.D. Holt, argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction on counts 5 and 7 of the indictment. Her sentence of three years on probation could properly have been imposed as a result of her conviction under count 1. See18 U.S.C.A. § 371. Where the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction on one count and the total sentence imposed doesPage 448not exceed the maximum which may be imposed under that count, we will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence as to other counts. Barenblatt v. United States, 1959,360 U.S. 109,115,79 S.Ct. 1081,3 L.Ed.2d 1115.
The last point on appeal is that the evidence discloses three separate conspiracies, each revolving around the operations of a single still, rather than one general conspiracy. We think that the evidence discloses one conspiracy to produce "moonshine" and the intermittent operations of the respective stills were all in pursuance of that end.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.Page 454