966 F.2d 1459 (8th Cir. 1992), 92-1035ND, U.S. v. Cichos

Docket Nº:92-1035ND.
Citation:966 F.2d 1459
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Ronald R. CICHOS, Appellant.
Case Date:June 08, 1992
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 1459

966 F.2d 1459 (8th Cir. 1992)



Ronald R. CICHOS, Appellant.

No. 92-1035ND.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

June 8, 1992

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA8 Rule 28A, FI CTA8 IOP and FI CTA8 APP. I regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted: May 12, 1992.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.



Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.


Ronald R. Cichos was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition, while a convicted felon, and the District Court 1 sentenced him to twenty-five months in prison. The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Cichos argues first that convicting him was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He relies on the terms of probation imposed upon him by a state court in California at the time of one of the previous convictions that were the predicate for the present offense. That court, he says, placed him on probation on the condition, among others, that he not possess concealable weapons. Because the firearm that is the basis of the present federal charge was not concealable, Cichos argues, the California state sentence, in effect, gave him a right to carry it. To prosecute him for an act that a California state court had assured him would be legal, he says, is fundamentally unfair.

We disagree. Among other things, Cichos was convicted of another crime in California, receiving stolen property, and the sentence for that crime contained no such exception for nonconcealable guns. Thus, even if Cichos's due-process argument has merit with respect to the California state conviction first mentioned, it would have to fail in the context of the present case. We note, in addition, that the order of probation imposed on Cichos at the time of the second conviction, in Placer County...

To continue reading