455 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1972), 26819, United States v. Giannini

Docket Nº:26819.
Citation:455 F.2d 147
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ezio GIANNINI and Charlotte Giannini, Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:January 27, 1972
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 147

455 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1972)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Ezio GIANNINI and Charlotte Giannini, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 26819.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 27, 1972

Christopher M. Reuss (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Richard W. Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.

Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, [*] District Judge.


Charlotte and Ezio Giannini appeal from their conviction for violating federal gun control statutes by reason of

Page 148

their dealings with certain submachine guns and their interstate transportation of ammunition.

Two indictments were returned against appellants. The first indictment charged both appellants with three counts for violations of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(c) (possession of an Ingram submachine gun made in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5822); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (possession of an unregistered Sten Mark V submachine gun); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h) (possession of an M-3 submachine gun whereon the serial number required by § 5842(a) had been obliterated). Ezio was charged with a fourth count, violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e) (transfer of a Sten Mark V submachine gun without complying with the transfer provision of 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a) and without payment of the transfer tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 5811(a)). The second indictment charged both appellants with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) (interstate transportation of ammunition while under indictment). A jury found appellants respectively guilty of each charge. The district court sentenced Ezio to five years imprisonment on each of the four counts of the first indictment with the sentences to run concurrently. The court suspended Ezio's sentence on the only count of the second indictment and placed him on probation for five years, commencing upon the expiration of the sentences imposed for offenses charged in the first indictment. It imposed concurrent three-year sentences upon Charlotte for the offenses of which she was convicted under the first indictment and, with respect to the second indictment, imposed punishment identical to that given Ezio. By reason of the concurrent sentences on the offenses charged in the first indictment, we confine our discussion to the third count of the first indictment and the single count of the second...

To continue reading