U.S. v. Samson, No. 75-1364
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before ALDRICH, McENTEE and CAMPBELL; ALDRICH |
| Citation | 533 F.2d 721 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Armand W. SAMSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1364 |
Page 721
v.
Armand W. SAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.
First Circuit.
Decided April 13, 1976.
Page 722
Ray R. Pallas, Westbrook, Maine, by appointment of the Court, for defendant-appellant.
Peter Mills, U. S. Atty., Portland, Maine, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendant was indicted in the district court for the District of Maine for receiving firearms in commerce after having "been convicted by a court . . . of a felony." 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). It appeared at the trial that the alleged firearms had been stolen in New York on January 30, and were purchased by defendant at his apartment in Maine on February 14 and 15, 1975. At that time defendant had been convicted of a felony in the state court, but the conviction was (and presently is) on appeal.
Defendant's present appeal raises several matters. His first contention is that the statute requires a final conviction. Concededly, this is solely a question of construction; lawfully a classification may be based upon a mere indictment. United States v. Craven, 6 Cir., 1973, 478 F.2d 1329, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S.Ct. 54, 38 L.Ed.2d 85; United States v. Thoresen, 9 Cir., 1970, 428 F.2d 654, 661-62. Defendant argues that where Congress did not include indictments, it must have intended the other extreme. This does not follow. By its normal meaning a defendant has been "convicted by a court" even though the conviction may sometime be reversed. Whether only a final conviction is meant in the particular instance is a matter of overall intent. If the disability imposed by the statute is sufficiently serious to the defendant, it might be appropriate to take the more restricted meaning. E.g., Donnell v. Board of Registration, 1930, 128 Me. 523, 149 A. 153 (cancellation of physician's registration); State v. DeBery, 1954, 150 Me. 28, 103 A.2d 523 (revocation of driver's license without notice of hearing); cf. State v. Mottram, 1962, 158 Me. 325, 184 A.2d 225 (enhanced sentence for "habitual offender"). But where the consequences of the deprivation are relatively slight compared with the gravity of the public interest sought to be protected, we would give "convicted by a court" its normal meaning. United States v. Wooten, 4 Cir., 1974, 503
Page 723
F.2d 65 (per curiam); United States v. Liles, 9 Cir.,...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Melvin, No. 78-1437
...day after the explosion. Reasonable inferences of this nature are sufficient to justify the search warrant. See United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); Cf. United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 224-27 (1st ......
-
U.S. v. Savoca, No. 83-3510
...623-24 (7th Cir.1982); Flores, 679 F.2d at 175-76; United States v. Maestas, 546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); United States v. Spearman, 532 F.2d 132, 133 (9th Cir.1976......
-
United States v. Roberson, No. 13–1925.
...normal meaning a defendant has been ‘convicted by a court’ even though the conviction may sometime be reversed.” United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 722 (1st Cir.1976) (holding that prohibition against receiving firearms in commerce after having “been convicted by a court ... of a felony......
-
U.S. v. Lewis, No. 78-5073
...establish the classifications of persons who might not possess firearms has never been questioned. United States v. Samson (1st Cir. 1976) 533 F.2d 721, 722, Cert. denied 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116. Congress has identified in that Act as a class not permitted to possess or r......
-
U.S. v. Melvin, No. 78-1437
...day after the explosion. Reasonable inferences of this nature are sufficient to justify the search warrant. See United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); Cf. United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 224-27 (1st ......
-
United States v. Roberson, No. 13–1925.
...normal meaning a defendant has been ‘convicted by a court’ even though the conviction may sometime be reversed.” United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 722 (1st Cir.1976) (holding that prohibition against receiving firearms in commerce after having “been convicted by a court ... of a felony......
-
U.S. v. Lewis, No. 78-5073
...establish the classifications of persons who might not possess firearms has never been questioned. United States v. Samson (1st Cir. 1976) 533 F.2d 721, 722, Cert. denied 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116. Congress has identified in that Act as a class not permitted to possess or r......
-
State v. Heald
...circuit courts have consistently held that the term "convicted" denotes the verdict of guilty at the trial level. United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Wooten, 503 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1974). See also United States v. Liles, 432 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1970). Suffic......