26 U.S.C. § 5861(D)

82 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Redwine
  715 F.2d 315· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 174×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to intimidate, substantive offenses of intimidation, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
• United States v. Rone
  598 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 152×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority's interpretation of 'enterprise' under the RICO statute is too broad and was not intended by Congress.
• United States v. James
  528 F.2d 999· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 148×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy convictions, rejecting claims of insufficient evidence and improper publicity.
• United States v. Pritchard
  745 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 138×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly or recklessly included false information in the warrant affidavit. The court also held that the affidavit provided suffici
• United States v. Craven
  478 F.2d 1329· 6th Cir.· 1973-05-08 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for firearms and narcotics violations, and that the statute prohibiting indicted persons from receiving firearms in interstate commerce is constitutional.
• United States v. Harflinger
  436 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-31 ·cited 100×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the investigative stop, arrest, and seizure of evidence were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the charges under the National Firearms Act.
• United States v. Bubar
  567 F.2d 192· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 90×
  The court held that in-court identifications were permissible if based on independent memory, not suggestive photographs, and that prosecutorial comments on failure to produce evidence did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also affirmed convictions for possession of an u
• United States v. Athanasios Theodoropoulos
  866 F.2d 587· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 68×
  The court held that expert testimony on coded conversations and defendants' roles was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the drug and firearm convictions.
• United States v. Melancon
  462 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant and that the description of the premises, despite a minor discrepancy in the box number, was sufficiently particular under federal standards.
• United States v. Stout
  667 F.2d 1347· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of certain portions of Treasury documents required reversal of convictions for failure to pay taxes, but affirmed convictions for possessing unregistered firearms and firearms lacking serial numbers. The court also found no reversible e
• United States v. Pietras
  501 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the unregistered firearm count was properly joined and supported by sufficient evidence, and that the assault on the officer during flight was covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). However, sentences for aggravated offenses under the same statute cannot be pyramided
• Lyne Keith Kilcrease v. United States
  457 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-28 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appellant's consent to search his car was valid, his statements were admissible, and the Fifth Amendment did not bar prosecution for possession of unregistered firearms.
• United States v. Woods
  560 F.2d 660· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the shotgun was admissible evidence because it was discovered under the plain view doctrine, and the officers were lawfully present in the residence to execute an arrest warrant.
• United States v. Londell Williams
  879 F.2d 454· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, including enhancements for obstruction of justice and stolen firearms, and that the Guidelines themselves are constitutional.
• United States v. Neff
  525 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 40×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring opinion discussing a procedural rule.
• United States v. Pleasant
  730 F.2d 657· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence under the dangerous special offender statute was not disproportionate and that his due process and equal protection claims were without merit.
• United States v. Evans
  526 F.2d 701· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that technical deviations in jury selection procedures did not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, and other contentions regarding grand jury secrecy, Brady material, evidence of unindicted acts, and severance were wi
• United States v. Birmley
  529 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1976-01-29 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Birmley and Capps for possession of unregistered firearms but reversed the conviction of Sexton, finding insufficient evidence of possession for the latter.
• United States v. Adams
  484 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1973-05-11 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the stop of the vehicle was not based on probable cause, rendering the subsequent search unlawful.
• United States v. Ross
  458 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a Molotov cocktail is a 'destructive device' under the National Firearms Act and that the statute is constitutional and supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Phillips
  727 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the wife's sworn affidavit, despite potential motives and lack of corroboration, provided sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of the circumstances to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
• United States v. Taylor
  728 F.2d 864· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knowingly possessed the unregistered machine gun and silencer, and that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other items seized or in its cross-examination of the defendant.
• United States v. Ackerson
  502 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun and for possessing a firearm made without paying the required tax were valid, and the sentences, running concurrently, did not violate double jeopardy or statutory limits.
• United States v. Hurse
  453 F.2d 128· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress without first determining probable cause for the initial entry, which required disclosure of the informant's identity to the court.
• United States v. Jackson
  560 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the appellants' actions constituted a substantial step towards bank robbery, corroborating their criminal intent, and thus met the definition of attempt under federal law.
• United States v. Scott
  914 F.2d 959· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred by departing upward from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines without adequately articulating the reasons for the departure and linking them to the structure of the guidelines, and by failing to follow prescribed procedures for departures
• United States v. Hart
  729 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Miranda and Jackson v. Denno claims by failing to raise them in the trial court, that jury admonitions were adequate, evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, the lack of a voir dire transcript did not preclude review, and
• United States v. Arvle Edgar Medlin
  798 F.2d 407· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search warrant was facially valid and reliance on it was objectively reasonable under the Leon good-faith exception, but remanded for a hearing on whether the seizure of items not named in the warrant constituted a flagrant disregard requiring suppression
• United States v. Jackson
  562 F.2d 789· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the District Court retained jurisdiction over a District of Columbia offense that was properly joined with a federal offense, even after severance.
• United States v. Neal
  692 F.2d 1296· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-05 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or a bill of particulars, and there was no double jeopardy violation.
• United States v. Dunn
  946 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of drug dealing was relevant to motive and corroboration, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding certain evidence. The court also affirmed the sentence enhancement for prior violent felonies and the classifi
• United States v. Griley
  814 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the government's change in sentencing recommendation for a witness was unorthodox, it did not constitute reversible error because the witness accurately described the initial plea agreement terms to the jury, and the subsequent change was a surprise to t
• United States v. Reed
  726 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the gasoline-filled cans used in the October 1 fire constituted an 'explosive' or 'incendiary device' under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), but the method used in the October 15 fire did not. The court also held that the cans were not 'destructive devices' under the Natio
• United States v. Cowley
  452 F.2d 243· 10th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the seizure of the firearm was lawful without a warrant or arrest, statements made before arrest were admissible, the variance between the indictment and evidence was not fatal, and the jury instructions were not coercive.
• Warren v. United States
  447 F.2d 259· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of the sawed-off shotgun and documentary evidence of non-registration was proper, and the prosecution did not violate the appellant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Concepcion
  983 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court denied a petition for rehearing en banc, allowing the prior panel decision to stand.
• United States v. Luce
  726 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a silencer, even in unassembled component parts, can be considered a 'firearm' under the National Firearms Act if the parts are readily available and easily assembled. It also held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an entrapment instruction.
• United States v. Thomas
  531 F.2d 419· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the scienter element for possession and transfer of an unregistered firearm was prejudicially erroneous.
• United States v. Stanfield
  521 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's actions in making the opening statement and commenting on the evidence, as well as admitting unauthenticated transcripts to the jury, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Cruz
  455 F.2d 184· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments and interruptions did not constitute plain error or deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Martinez
  954 F.2d 1050· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 18×
  Prior convictions for attempted burglary under Texas law do not qualify as 'violent felonies' for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because they do not inherently involve the use of physical force or present the same serious potential risk of physical injury as burgla
• United States v. Wessells
  936 F.2d 165· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in grouping offenses for sentencing purposes.
• United States v. Williams
  775 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court exceeded statutory limits by imposing a life sentence without a jury recommendation, and that the jury instructions on flight were proper.
• United States v. Ross
  917 F.2d 997· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court should reverse the district court's judgment because the jury instruction incorrectly stated the knowledge required for a conviction under the National Firearms Act.
• United States v. Tribunella
  749 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 16×
  A firearm is not an 'antique firearm' exempt from the National Firearms Act if any usable ammunition is readily available in ordinary channels of commerce, even if that ammunition was not specifically designed for the firearm.
• United States v. Motley
  655 F.2d 186· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 15×
  A superseding indictment that increases the severity of charges after a defendant successfully moves for a mistrial violates due process unless the government can justify the increased severity. Simplifying charges to improve conviction chances does not constitute vindictive pros
• United States v. Curtis
  520 F.2d 1300· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that commercial dynamite fashioned into a bomb with a timer and box constitutes a 'destructive device' under the National Firearms Act, but convictions for a smaller device were vacated due to insufficient evidence and excluded proof of intent.
• United States v. Elbert Ponder
  522 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 14×
  Multiple convictions under 26 U.S.C. § 5861 are permissible for a single act if each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not.
• United States v. Cruz
  492 F.2d 217· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Molotov cocktails are 'destructive devices' under the National Firearms Act and that the certificate of non-registration is admissible evidence.
• United States v. Love
  482 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the taking of acetone swabs incident to a lawful arrest, and that the unintentional destruction of evidence does not require exclusion if the expert is available for cross-examination.