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.
GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES, 1932 — 61 F.2d 414 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES
61 F.2d 414·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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
GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6694.
Circuit Court of Appeals, .Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 1932.
Shelby Myrieb, of Savannah, Ga., for appellant.
Walter W. Sheppard, U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., and Mahlon D. Kiefer, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied December 3, 1932.
[MAJORITY — FOSTER, Circuit Judge.]
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was charged with conspiring with a number of other named persons to commit various offenses against the laws of the United States in violation of the customs laws. A demurrer was overruled. Reserving his rights under the demurrer, he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. The principal contention of appellant is that the indictment is vague, indefinite, and duplicitous, and does not charge a conspiracy to violate any specific criminal statute. It is unnecessary to discuss this contention in detail. We think the indictment sufficiently charges a conspiracy to violate the customs laws by smuggling and clandestinely introducing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes into the United States without invoicing or paying the duty upon same, with intent to defraud the United States. Jenkins et al. v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 2. Certiorari denied October 17, 1932, 53 S. Ct. 81, 77 L. Ed.-.
The record presents no reversible error.
Affirmed,