General
James MANCUSO, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error
21 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1927
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James MANCUSO, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 15, 1927.
No. 4969.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio; Paul Jones, Judge.
Oscar Klekner, of Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
Howell Leuek, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Reversed, on authority of Weaver v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 38, and Martin v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 785. If it might be thought that the indictment here was sufficient because, not negativing sales of stamped narcotics, it would have permitted proof that Mancuso was selling stamped packages, and was therefore a dealer required to register, yet there is no proof to that effect in the record, nor was any package sold offered in evidence. In any event, and for lack of such proof, there should have been a directed verdict.