*1 et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Petition for insofar as it seeks review of by affirmance the Court of Appeals of count .(possession count) of petitioners convictions of Stanley, Thomas, and Massey. Judgment. as to these three individuals vacated insofar as that count is con- cerned and case remanded to the Court of Appeals so. may that it consider suggestions contained in the memo- randum the Solicitor General filed By here. this re- mand this Court intimates no view as to merits of the Solicitor General’s position. In all other respects the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. and White Justice Blackmun dissent deny certiorari.
Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.
The statute at the time of conviction made manu facture a crime, 21 U. S. C. (1964 § 360a (a) ed., Supp. I). It also made “possession” a crime in the following words—“No person . .. possess* . shall any depressant stimulant, or drug (1) otherwise than' personal use member, of himself or of a of his household; or (2) administration to an animal by him' owned or a member .of his household.” 21 U. S. C. §360a(c) (1964 ed., Supp. I). by
As stated Court Appeals, the law, which was enacted in 1965, did not make possession personal use a crime but it did make possession for sale an offense; and here the evidence is possession clear that was for sale. * Amendments in 1968 made all possession criminal — for sale and “otherwise,” 82 Stat. 1361. While tried after the enactment of the amendments, their offenses were, committed earlier. The 1968 apply “only amendments respect to violations . . . committed after the date of the enactment of this Act.” com- agents in November
Beginning illegal into suspected' investigation an menced Petitioners Bay area. Francisco in the San activities *2 During’ surveillance. extensive under placed were others a Krusko, one of surveillance period the petitioner acquainted agent, undercover became. $3,400), for (once him from LSD purchased Spires, twice con- These him. .with conversations frequent had and engaged Stanley was petitioner that revealed versations includ- drugs various distributing .and manufacturing in per- of these conversations topic frequent A LSD. ing of LSD. purchase the to tained Spires- -conversation, a during 1967, 15,
On November to going boys” were the of “some Krusko that informed in “way out a location had found laboratory and up a set 100 the that him of informed also Spires sticks.” the possessed, Stanley previously had of LSD which grams Spires tablets. form in of the distributed had .been 10 $2,500 for large quantities normally sold said that gram. per to going he was stated the Spires December
On LSD some attempt get to would laboratory and. produce to Stanley intended that saying Krusko, Christmas. of LSD before grams of search warrant obtained a thereupon The officers They 21. December on was executed which premises the All of LSD. the manufacture factory for a small found officers the were arrested house of the occupants all, In house. of the room-by-room search a made house. from the were taken evidence pieces of or 126 room. in one table found a bottle was on brown large A found to. powder of white grams its 472 analysis On closet across from in a On shelf a LSD. be 5.3% of containing grams bottle plastic awas bathroom the pure at the- of LSD grams The 42 LSD. pure 95% 95% price quoted by Spires would bring $105,000 in and if sold in quantities lesser bring more. each,
The Government charged petitioner with manu- facture of LSD, possession LSD, of conspiracy manufacture, compound, process, sell, and deliver LSD. Spires Petitioner was also charged with two counts of selling LSD. All were found guilty on each count charged against them. The District did not Judge specific make a the finding that of was LSD purposes for the sale, but the Court of Appeals con- cluded that evidence was overwhelming pos- that session was purposes sale. 427 F. 2d 1071. 1066,
We distort the record when we “pos treat the case as session” of a .purposes of manufacture. We deal with a drug after it was manufactured and held for sale. The charge *3 “possession” made in the indict ment was “possession” therefore as defined the 1965 Act. power The pardon is reserved for the Executive. Accordingly, I deny I certiorari and dissent from a remand of the case.
No. 656. Licata A. C. 9th Cir. v. United States. Upon consideration of suggestion of mootness examinationof entire record, petition for judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Central District of California with directions to dismiss case as moot. opinion is of the that certiorari should Black be granted and case set for argument. oral p. 878. Ap- ante, v. Illinois, Hawthorne stay plication to effectiveness of order denying certiorari denied.