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. Bryan N. Was and Norman Was, Defendants-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 869 F.2d 34
Argued Feb. 6, 1989.Decided Feb. 13, 1989
Peter D. Markle, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn. (Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., U.S. Atty., D.Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Charles A. Maglieri, Bloomfield, Conn. (Barall & Maglieri, Bloomfield, Conn., on the brief), for defendant-appellant Bryan N. Was.
F. Mac Buckley, Hartford, Conn. (Buckley & Santos, P.C., Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for defendant-appellant Norman Was, joined in the brief of defendant-appellant Bryan N. Was.
Before KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and LEVAL, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Defendants Bryan N. Was and Norman Was appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Peter C. Dorsey, Judge, following their conditional pleas of guilty to firearms offenses. Bryan Was pleaded guilty to one count of transferring a firearm that was a machinegun within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(b) (1982), in violation of id. Secs. 5861(e) and 5871 (1982 & Supp. II 1984); both defendants pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transfer such firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (1982). On appeal, defendants contend principally that the district court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that the items they transferred, known as "auto sears," as a matter of law cannot be deemed machineguns within the meaning of Sec. 5845(b) because an auto sear is not a "combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun," 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(b).
We reject defendants' arguments and affirm the judgments of conviction substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, reported at 684 F.Supp. 350 (1988).