Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
ARKALIAN v. UNITED STATES, 1932 — 59 F.2d 175 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
ARKALIAN v. UNITED STATES
59 F.2d 175·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1932
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
ARKALIAN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6799.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 31, 1932.
David E. Peckinpah, of Fresno, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and P. V. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and Neterer, District Judge.
Rehearing denied August 1, 1932,
[MAJORITY — NETERER, District Judge.]
NETERER, District Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction on three counts of the same indictment in the Coates Case (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 173, just decided, charging, in count 1, a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act; count 2, possession of “one still and distilling apparatus set up on the Foss Ranch”; and count 4, possessing certain property and apparatus designed and intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and describing the items composing the illegal apparatus, together with twenty-five gallons of mash.
The' sufficiency of the indictment is challenged and lack of evidence urged. It is admitted that appellant agreed to raise $1,-500 fór the illicit enterprise, and there is testimony that he raised a part of this sum. By these acts he became a member of the conspiracy, irrespective of other evidence tending to such fact. The possession of the distilling apparatus,- confessedly in the possession of his coeonspirators, was his possession.
The errors claimed were all considered and denied in Coates v. United States (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 173, just decided, and on what was there said and herein the judgment is affirmed.