United States v. Brown, 29166 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 29166 Summary Calendar.,29166 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Nelvie BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gerald P. Aurillo, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.
Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Richard M. Olsen, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on a one count indictment charging appellant with violating the Federal Firearms Act of 1947.1 The indictment charged appellant with violating 15 U.S.C.A. § 902(e), which makes it a crime for a person who had been convicted previously of a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more to transport or cause to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition.
The appellant was found guilty after a jury trial on June 10, 1969. Between the commission of the offense and conviction, 15 U.S.C.A. § 902(e) was repealed by 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (Gun Control Act of 1968) (Public Law 90-618, 82 Stat. 1220), which became effective on December 16, 1968. The latter statute is essentially the same as the old section, except that the new section no longer includes the language "cause to be shipped or transported" in interstate or foreign commerce. The issue is whether a conviction based on the old statute can be validly rendered after repeal of that statute. We answer in the affirmative.
Appellant argues that the indictment was returned on December 30, 1968, fourteen days after repeal of the old statute on which the indictment was based,2 and that therefore the indictment and subsequent conviction are invalid. The government argues that the December 30 indictment merely superseded two previous indictments, dated November 19, 1968, and September 24, 1968, and thus the effective date of the indictment was September 24, 1968, and within the effective period of 15 U. S.C.A. § 902(e). We find it unnecessary to decide the question of the effective date of the indictment, since the general savings clause found in 1 U.S.C. A. § 109, coupled with judicial construction of that section, disposes of the issue in this case.
The general savings clause provides in part:
"The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability. * * *"
Under this section, penalties accruing while a statute was in force may be prosecuted after its repeal, unless there is an express provision to the contrary in the repealing statute. In United States v. Reisinger, 128 U.S. 398, 9 S.Ct. 99, 32 L.Ed. 480 (1888), the Supreme Court held that the savings clause should be read in conjunction with the repealing statute. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 28 S.Ct. 313, 52 L.Ed. 567 (1908). In Bowen v. United States, 171 F.2d 533, 534 (5 Cir., 1948), this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero 8212 831
...also United States v. Smith, 433 F.2d 341 (CA4 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 949, 28 L.Ed.2d 223 (1971); United States v. Brown, 429 F.2d 566 (CA5 1970); Faubion v. United States, 424 F.2d 437 (CA10 3. In Kirby and Lovely the Courts of Appeals construed the general saving clau......
-
United States v. Lucero
...at 271, 114 S.Ct. 1483. But that common-law rule was abrogated by statute. Id. (citing 1 U.S.C. § 109 ); see also United States v. Brown , 429 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1970) ("Under [1 U.S.C. § 109 ], penalties accruing while a statute was in force may be prosecuted after its repeal, unless ......
-
State v. Cungtion
...to ten-year mandatory minimum under former version of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in effect at time of defendant's conduct); United States v. Brown , 429 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1970) (applying section 109 in upholding conviction for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 902(e), which was repealed between the co......
-
U.S. v. Schumann
...in force may be prosecuted after its repeal, absent an express provision to the contrary in the repealing statute. United States v. Brown, 429 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir.1970). The words "repeal of any statute" in the savings clause also have been held to encompass statutory amendments. See Uni......