26 U.S.C. § 5861(D)

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

• United States v. Palmer
  435 F.2d 653· 1st Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the sawed-off shotgun was legally seized under the plain view doctrine and that the defendant's possession of the unregistered firearm violated federal law, regardless of whether he was a transferee.
• United States v. Willis
  925 F.2d 359· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines by cross-referencing to aggravated assault provisions, even when the underlying offense was a state crime, and that this did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Lowther v. United States
  480 F.2d 1031· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's seizure and destruction of the plaintiff's property, despite his acquittal on criminal charges, constituted an unconstitutional taking without due process, for which the Tucker Act provided a remedy.
• United States v. Matthews
  438 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-18 ·cited 12×
  The application of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) is constitutional, as registration provisions are a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power, even if they have a regulatory effect.
• United States v. Creed Miles Evans
  928 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant's appeal of prior rulings was not moot despite his nolo contendere plea, and affirmed the district court's denial of his motions.
• United States v. Hawke
  505 F.2d 817· 10th Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by submitting the issue of entrapment to the jury, admitting evidence of other criminal activity to show predisposition, admitting transcripts of recorded conversations, or denying the motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Kindred
  931 F.2d 609· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction was erroneous because it only required the government to prove the defendant knew he possessed a 'gun,' rather than knowing he possessed a dangerous device likely subject to regulation.
• United States v. Malone
  546 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant could not be guilty of possessing an unregistered destructive device because the component parts found in his possession lacked the essential element of explosive material, which was necessary for assembly into a functional destructive device.
• United States v. Bowdach
  458 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-19 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Keller
  947 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for sport/recreational firearm use and did not err by not departing downward for diminished mental capacity.
• United States v. Bonitz
  826 F.2d 954· 10th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the AR-15 rifle and sear kits should have been suppressed because they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, while the M-16 bolt carrier assembly was properly seized under the plain view doctrine.
• United States v. Stockwell
  743 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination using information from a psychiatric examination did not violate Rule 12.2(c) or the Fifth Amendment, as it was limited to rebutting the defendant's insanity defense. The court also held that the time spent on the psychiatric
• United States v. Fahmi A. Khatib
  706 F.2d 213· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the fact that firearms were unregistered in the hands of government agents is no defense to a transferee's prosecution for receiving and possessing unregistered firearms, and that the statute prohibiting unauthorized food stamp acquisition applies to non-parti
• United States v. Ragusa
  664 F.2d 696· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the assembled collection of gasoline containers, paper towels, and matchbooks constituted a destructive device under the National Firearms Act, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendants' convictions for unlawful possession.
• United States v. Bruder
  945 F.2d 167· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's offenses of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm should be grouped for sentencing purposes because they involve substantially the same harm. The court also held that post-offense rehabilitation, whi
• United States v. Reindeau
  947 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that restricting the cross-examination of the government's expert witness regarding whether the explosive device was designed as a weapon impermissibly prevented the defendants from presenting their defense, constituting reversible error.
• United States v. Ware
  914 F.2d 997· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 4×
  An Illinois police officer's observation of a shotgun in plain view through a vehicle's window in Indiana did not constitute a search, and exigent circumstances justified its retrieval. Expert testimony regarding a firearm's interstate travel, based on industry research, is admis
• United States v. Sizemore
  632 F.2d 8· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported Elzie Sizemore's conviction for making and possessing a destructive device, but not Frank Sizemore's conviction.
• United States v. Wilson
  546 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a device containing dynamite, intended and used to destroy a vehicle, qualifies as a "destructive device" or "bomb" under federal law, even if commercial dynamite is a component.
• United States v. Anderson
  987 F.2d 251· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that separate convictions for manufacturing and attempting to manufacture methamphetamine are permissible if they involve factually distinct batches, and that sentencing based on the total weight of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine is p
• United States v. Parker
  960 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and consecutive sentencing for two distinct federal firearms offenses did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and therefore, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise such an objection.
• United States v. Javino
  960 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the conviction on count 1 must be reversed for insufficient evidence that the destructive device was made in the United States, but affirmed convictions on counts 2 and 3.
• United States v. Rushcamp
  526 F.2d 1380· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the record did not contain sufficient proof that the bazooka was capable of being fired or readily converted to expel a projectile, as required by statute.
• Moore v. United States
  512 F.2d 1255· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possessing a prohibited firearm was valid, despite a variance between the indictment and the proof, because the weapon qualified as an 'any other weapon' under federal law and the variance was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Dickey
  428 F.2d 381· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm, and the search warrant was validly issued.
• United States v. Franklin
  721 F. Supp. 2d 1229· M.D. Fla.· 2010-06-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the residence and seizure of firearms, denying the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Gaines
  11th Cir.· 2025-09-10
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the term 'crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) requires a defendant-specific analysis, not an offense-specific one, and that 'imprisonment' does not include community corrections or suspended se
• Sainmelus v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-19
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of unconstitutional vagueness, lack of jurisdiction, and ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred or meritless, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his sentence.
• United States v. Rice
  995 F.2d 719· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-07
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the shotgun, finding Rice's consent to the search was voluntary, and that the jury instructions adequately covered the defense theory.
• United States v. Wayde Lynn Kurt
  988 F.2d 73· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-08
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, and therefore affirmed his conviction.
• Armsbury v. United States
  443 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-16