Dugan v. United States, 14646.
Citation | 341 F.2d 85 |
Decision Date | 02 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 14646.,14646. |
Parties | Bennie Lee DUGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Joseph A. Spitalli, Jerold S. Solovy, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Abraham A. Dash, Department of Justice, Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., Carl W. Feickert, U. S. Atty., E. St. Louis, Ill., Robert F. Quinn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert S. Erdahl, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
Bennie Lee Dugan, petitioner, has appealed from an order of the district court denying his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate a judgment and sentence entered on July 31, 1962 on his plea of guilty, under which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined $1,000.
Petitioner waived formal indictment and later pleaded guilty to an information which charged that on or about May 13, 1962, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5841, he possessed a firearm which was described as "a new long range Winner, 12 gauge single barrel shot gun, bearing serial number 152328, with barrel less than 18 inches in length" without having registered the same with the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, as required by law.
Petitioner's § 2255 motion was based on the contention that 26 U.S.C.A. § 5841 violated his privilege against self-incrimination and was, therefore, unconstitutional. § 5841 provides:
This language indicates to us that only when an individual is in possession of a firearm which has been made, transferred or imported in violation of the Act is he required to register. Statutory provisions which might be violated as to any particular firearm, as referred to in § 5841, may include the following:
If any of these applicable provisions has not been complied with, any person in possession of such a firearm must register it pursuant to § 5841. However registration under § 5841 does not merely constitute a compliance with that act, but may subject the person to prosecution under § 5851, which provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haynes v. United States
...violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Russell v. United States, 9 Cir., 306 F.2d 402; Dugan v. United States, 7 Cir., 341 F.2d 85; McCann v. United States D.C., 217 F.Supp. 751; United States v. Fleish, D.C., 227 F.Supp. 967. See also Lovelace v. United ......
-
Deckard v. United States
...rather than merely as to possible future acts. Other cases reaching the same result as to unconstitutionality are Dugan v. United States, 341 F.2d 85 (7 Cir. 1965); Lovelace v. United States, 357 F.2d 306, 307-309 (5 Cir. 1966); McCann v. United States, 217 F.Supp. 751 (D.Colo.1963); United......
-
United States v. Miller
...Id. 6 Deckard v. United States, 381 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1967); Lovelace v. United States, 357 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1966); Dugan v. United States, 341 F.2d 85 (7th Cir. 1965); Russell v. United States, 306 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1962). See also United States v. Fleish, 227 F. Supp. 967 (E.D.Mich.196......
-
United States v. Benner, 23026.
...Cir. 1962); Deckard v. United States, 381 F.2d 77 (8 Cir. 1967); Lovelace v. United States, 357 F.2d 306 (5 Cir. 1966); Dugan v. United States, 341 F.2d 85 (7 Cir. 1965). 7 Frye v. United States, 315 F.2d 491 (9 Cir. 1963); Starks v. United States, 316 F.2d 45 (9 Cir. 1963); Decker v. Unite......