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.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Robert SPEED and Henry Ray Rainer, Defendants-Appellants, 1975 — 520 F.2d 322 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Robert SPEED and Henry Ray Rainer, Defendants-Appellants
520 F.2d 322·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before RIVES, WISDOM and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
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
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Robert SPEED and Henry Ray Rainer, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 73-2035.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 4, 1975.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY]
ORDER
In this pre-Almeida-Sanchez case, defendants Speed and Rainer were convicted in a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This court, in an opinion reported at 497 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1974), affirming on rehearing 489 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1973), reversed the convictions on the grounds that the district court had erred in not suppressing evidence obtained by a search at the Falfurrias, Texas, checkpoint. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Bowen v. United States, 422 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 2569, 45 L.Ed.2d 641 (1975) and United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975). In view of these two opinions, the district court’s decision was correct.
Having found the defendants’ other contentions of error to be without merit, we conclude that the judgment of the district court should be
Affirmed.