UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT EDWARD GRAVENMIER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's prior conviction was valid and his motion to set aside the conviction was properly denied.
Gravenmier was convicted of possessing a shotgun with a barrel cut to 8 inches, made in violation of federal law. He appealed his conviction and it wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of An Unregistered Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Gravenmier was convicted in federal court under an indictment reading as follows:
“On or about July 14, 1966, in Los Angeles County, within the Central Division of the Southern District of California, defendant ROBERT EDWARD GRAVENMIER unlawfully possessed a Winchester single shot 16 gauge model 37 shotgun with the barrel cut to 8 inches, a firearm as defined by Section 5848, Title 26, United States Code, which firearm theretofore had been made in violation of the internal revenue laws set forth in Section 5821, Title 26, United States Code.”
He appealed and we affirmed. Gravenmier v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 380 F. 2d 30, cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 886, 88 S.Ct. 167, 19 L.Ed.2d 186. On May 2, 1968, he filed a motion to set aside his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied, and he appeals.
Gravenmier relies upon Haynes v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S. Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923. See also Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906; Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889; Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57.
In United States v. Benner, 9 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 421,(decided October 13, 1969), we carefully considered the contention that Gravenmier makes and rejected it. See also DePugh v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 401 F. 2d 346, 351-352; Lewis v. United States, 10 Cir., 1969, 408 F. 2d 1310.
In Benner we held that the result may be different where the defendant is himself the maker of the weapon. But in this case Gravenmier does not assert that he was the maker, and there is nothing in the record of his trial to indicate that he was the maker. Gravenmier’s defense was that he never had possession of the weapon.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1969)
- Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1968)
- Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1968)
- Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1968)
- Smith v. United States, 389 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1967)
- DePUGH v. United States, 401 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Benner, 417 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Lewis v. United States, 408 F.2d 1310 (10th Cir. 1969)
- Toles v. United States, 389 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1967)
- Gravenmier v. United States, 380 F.2d 30 (9th Cir. 1967)