United States of America, Appellee, v. Stanley Wooden, Appellant, 453 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. 1971)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 453 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. 1971) Argued Nov. 29, 1971. Decided Dec. 7, 1971

Howard J. Stechel, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert A. Morse, U. S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., and David G. Trager, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Allen Lashley, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edward Malz, Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.

Before LUMBARD, WATERMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


We affirm the judgment of conviction for violating the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. § 174, 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, repealed after conviction by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-531, effective May 1, 1971. The evidence relating to the conspiracy count, that narcotics transactions occurred between appellant's brother and the government agent each time after the latter had telephoned appellant to arrange a meeting with the brother, was allowable as probative of the substantive crime charged of passing heroin to the agent, and the dismissal of the conspiracy count late in the trial did not render the evidence inadmissible. Cf. United States v. Branker, 418 F.2d 378 (2 Cir. 1969). We do not need to consider the government's claim that the conspiracy count was improperly dismissed.

Of course, the district court is free to entertain motions from the parties to reconsider the sentence. Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P. If such a motion is made, that Court may then consider United States v. Stephens, 449 F.2d 103 (9th Cir., 1971); United States v. Caraballo, 334 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1971), aff'd without opinion (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 1971), and United States v. Fiotto, Dkt. 71-1651, currently pending in this court, concerning the effect of the repeal of certain statutory provisions having to do with sentence.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.