TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Salvadore J. Nuccio

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvadore J. NUCCIO, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Nuccio, 487 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 16, 1974
Docket
No. 73-2416
Judges
Gewin, Coleman, Morgan
Citations
487 F.2d 462

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Nuccio was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a)(1). We affirm.

Appellant’s only substantial claim on appeal is that 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a)(1) was not proven by the government to be applicable in his case. That statute says, in part: “Any person who has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.” Appellant argues that the government failed to show any nexus between appellant’s receipt and possession of the pistol and interstate commerce. The test as to what must be shown by the government has been clearly delineated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 , 92 S.Ct. 515 , 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). The Court said, “ . . .we conclude that the Government meets its burden here if it demonstrates that the firearm received has previously traveled in interstate commerce.” 404 U.S. at 351 , 92 S.Ct. at 524 . This circuit recently reiterated that position in United States v. Thomas, 5 Cir. 1973, 485 F.2d 557 .

Testimony at trial demonstrated that the weapon found on Nuccio was shipped from New York City to Dallas, Texas, and then to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. This court has carefully examined the record below and find the government met the requirements of Bass and Thomas, supra.

Appellant’s other contentions concern double jeopardy, search and seizure, self-incrimination and jury composition. We have considered all of these contentions and have found them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11975: 11983: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Johnnie Lawrence Goodie524 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. United States v. Warren Edward Walden707 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1983)
  3. United States v. Nuccio488 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1974)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Warren Edward Walden707 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1983)
  2. United States v. Johnnie Lawrence Goodie524 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1975)
  3. United States v. Nuccio488 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) 1,339
United States v. Thomas, 485 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1973) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list