Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellee, v. Ernest William Cabbler, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Herbert William Cabbler, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 429 F.2d 577
Argued June 1, 1970.Decided July 9, 1970
John H. Kennett, Jr., Roanoke, Va. (Court-appointed counsel in No. 14,240 only) for appellants.
Birg E. Sergent, James G. Welsh, Asst. U.S. Attys. (Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., U.S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Before BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is the consolidated appeal of two brothers, Ernest and Herbert Cabbler, who were separately tried and convicted on December 11, 1969 for violations of Federal gun control laws. Ernest was found guilty of possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. 1202(a)(1). Herbert was convicted on charges of making false statements both in connection with the acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and with respect to the records required to be kept by a firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(a).
Having carefully considered all of the numerous points raised by the appellants in this appeal, including inter alia the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act, the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, and an allegedly illegal search and seizure, we are not persuaded that the convictions should be disturbed.
Affirmed.