TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Aaron Harold Kenner

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Aaron Harold KENNER, Appellant

United States v. Kenner, 508 F.2d 409 (4th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 14, 1975
Docket
No. 74-1534
Judges
Russell, Field, Widener
Citations
508 F.2d 409

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Harold Kenner was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), which provides criminal penalties for any person who has been convicted of a felony “. . . and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm . ” On appeal, Kenner does not challenge that he has a valid previous felony conviction, that he had possession of a firearm, or that the government’s proof established that the firearm in question had traveled in interstate commerce at some point in time before he possessed it. Kenner asserts, however, that the government offered no proof connecting his possession of the weapon with its interstate transportation. It is also argued the statute is unconstitutional if construed to permit a conviction upon a mere showing that a firearm had, at some undetermined point, traveled in interstate commerce before being possessed by a convicted felon.

We have expressed our view on numerous recent occasions that in a prosecution for violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a), the government need not establish a nexus between the receipt or possession of a weapon and its movement in interstate commerce.

E. g., United States v. Davis (4th Cir. 1974), 498 F.2d 1398 ; United States v. Jordan (4th Cir. 1974), 502 F.2d 1163 ; United *410 States v. Mullins (4th Cir. 1973), 476 F.2d 664 , cert. denied 414 U.S. 839 , 94 S.Ct. 91 , 38 L.Ed.2d 75 (1973). We also reiterate our view that the statute is constitutional. United States v. Cabbler (4th Cir. 1970), 429 F.2d 577 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 901 , 91 S.Ct. 138 , 27 L.Ed.2d 138 (1970).

Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11976: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Marce Bell524 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1975)
  2. United States v. Edward Thomas Malone538 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1976)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Edward Thomas Malone538 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1976)
  2. United States v. Marce Bell524 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1975)

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
Smith v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 400 U.S. 902 (1970) 57
United States v. Mullins, 476 F.2d 664 (4th Cir. 1973) 14

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