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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joshua Daily Rouse, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, - 462 F.2d 126
J. Calvin Clay, Mobile, Ala. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Charles S. White-Spunner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted under Count One, charging that he wilfully and knowingly made a false statement in connection with the acquisition of a firearm from a dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 922(a) (6) and 924, and, under Count Two, of possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. (App.) Sec. 1202(a).
As to Count Two, the government confesses error for failure to prove a nexus between the firearm in question and interstate commerce. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). The confession of error is accepted, and the conviction under Count Two will be reversed.
The claim that the trial judge unduly participated in the examination of witnesses and demonstrated bias toward the defendant is without merit. The question of whether the shotgun purchased by defendant was sufficiently operable or convertible to constitute a firearm was for the jury, and the court properly charged on that issue. The sentences under the two counts were concurrent, therefore, the conviction under Count One is to be affirmed.
Affirmed as to Count One, reversed as to Count Two.