TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. John H. Taylor

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John H. TAYLOR, Appellant

United States v. Taylor, 635 F.2d 232 (3d Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 3, 1980
Docket
No. 79-2411
Judges
Gibbons, Weis, Slovi-Ter
Citations
635 F.2d 232

Opinion — Gibbons

OPINION ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

John H. Taylor appealed to this court from a judgment imposing separate sentences following his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1) (receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment) and 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) (unlawful possession of a firearm). He was given a two year sentence on each count. The district court suspended execution of sentence on the receipt count, imposing five years probation to commence upon Taylor’s release from custody on the possession count. Taylor contended on appeal to this court that he could not be punished cumulatively and consecutively for both receipt and possession of the same firearm. The government, relying on the Supreme Court’s discussion of § 922(h) and § 1202(a) in United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 119-20 , 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201-02 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), urged that Congress intended cumulative punishments. This panel was persuaded, and affirmed by judgment order on June 10, 1980. Taylor petitioned for certiorari, and on September 17, 1980 the Solicitor General confessed error. In his memorandum to the Supreme Court he noted that neither the language nor the legislative history of the two sections conclusively answered the question whether unlawful receipt followed by continuous possession could be punished *233 consecutively. He observed, however, that it was unlikely that Congress so intended. On his recommendation the writ of certiora-ri was granted, our judgment vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings in light of the government’s present position.

Although the Solicitor General’s memorandum is not entirely clear on the matter, we understand the government’s position to be that receipt and continuous possession thereafter constitutes a single offense for which only a single sentence may be imposed. In light of that position the judgment appealed from must be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing.

How later courts describe this case

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

1984: 11985: 119842026peak 1984 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ball v. United States470 U.S. 856 (1985)
  2. United States v. Ricky Darvin Martin732 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Ball v. United States470 U.S. 856 (1985)
  2. United States v. Ricky Darvin Martin732 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1984)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) 1,337

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