Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. William David Rose

United States v. William David Rose, 484 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1973)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1973-09-21
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: In this case, a jury convicted William David Rose on two counts of the knowing and intentional distribution of Schedule II and III drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, it was clearly shown that Rose wilfully aided and abetted one James Bryant in the actual distribution of the illegal products. The trial record is really devoid of any element of entrapment. Moreover, had such been the case, Rose took the witness stand and denied any participation whatsoever in the transaction. A directed verdict of not guilty could not have been justified.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. William David Rose. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 4 opinions

UNITED STATES v. ROSE,484 F.2d 654(5th Cir. 1973)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLIAM DAVID ROSE,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 73-1702.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

September 21, 1973.

Herbert T. Schwartz, Gainesville, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

William H. Stafford, Jr., U.S. Atty., Robert L. Crongeyer, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] In this case, a jury convicted William David Rose on two counts of the knowing and intentional distribution of Schedule II and III drugs in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

[2] Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, it was clearly shown that Rose wilfully aided and abetted one James Bryant in the actual distribution of the illegal products. The trial record is really devoid of any element of entrapment. Moreover, had such been the case, Rose took the witness stand and denied any participation whatsoever in the transaction. A directed verdict of not guilty could not have been justified.

[3] Although himself denying any personal participation in the actual distribution of the contraband, Rose argued below and argues here that the proof offered on behalf of the government showed that his alleged participation was an "agent of the undercover government agent", who actually acquired thePage 655drugs. Unfortunately, it was Rose who first approached the undercover agent and inquired as to whether he would like to purchase some high quality cocaine or speed. This inquiry resulted in the visit to Bryant and the illegal distribution. This consideration aside, this is a distribution case and the appellate argument is crushed been beneath the weight of our recent decisions in United States v. Johnson [opinion dated July 19, 1973]481 F.2d 645, and United States v. Miller [opinion dated August 6, 1973]483 F.2d 61.

[4] The judgment of conviction is

[5] Affirmed.Page 681

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