United States v. Francisco Marizal
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Per curiam
We have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing of this fact. See Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.
Francisco Marizal was convicted on a two count indictment for violating Sections 4704(a) and 4705(a) of Title 26, United States Code. On appeal, Marizal argues that the district court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Patricia Lebouef Murphy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Fontenot, Deceased, Etc. v. Houma Well Service, and Eva C. Fontenot, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- James Leo Huth v. Southern Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. MonroeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- United States v. Harold E. MillsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- State v. BrockOhio Court of Appeals · 1973
- Francisco Marizal v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- United States v. CaniDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2008