Albert Frederick Nussbaum v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Albert Frederick Nussbaum v. United States

441 F.2d 273, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10592

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1971

Docket23811

StatusPublished

This text of 441 F.2d 273 (Albert Frederick Nussbaum v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Frederick Nussbaum v. United States, 441 F.2d 273, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10592 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nussbaum appeals from an order dismissing his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Nussbaum was convicted for carrying and possessing in interstate commerce a Thompson submachine gun that had not been registered in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §§ 5851 and 5854. In the only argument of substance in his petition, Nussbaum contends that Haynes v. United States ((1968) 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923) compels his release. Haynes held that the registration provisions of section 5851 are self-incriminatory and that failure to comply with them cannot be criminally punished.

Haynes would compel vacation of Nussbaum’s conviction if it were to be given retrospective application. But in Mackey v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 667, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed. 404, the Supreme Court held that Marchetti v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, the companion *274 cases of Haynes raising the same self-incrimination issue, would apply only to prosecutions commenced after the date those decisions were announced. Nussbaum’s prosecution antedated the pronouncement of Haynes.

The order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Nussbaum appeals from an order dismissing his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Nussbaum was convicted for carrying and possessing in interstate commerce a Thompson submachine gun that had not been registered in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §§ 5851 and 5854. In the only argument of substance in his petition, Nussbaum contends that Haynes v. United States ((1968) 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923) compels his release. Haynes held that the registration provisions of section 5851 are self-incriminatory and that failure to comply with them cannot be criminally punished.

Haynes would compel vacation of Nussbaum’s conviction if it were to be given retrospective application. But in Mackey v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 667, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed. 404, the Supreme Court held that Marchetti v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, the companion *274 cases of Haynes raising the same self-incrimination issue, would apply only to prosecutions commenced after the date those decisions were announced. Nussbaum’s prosecution antedated the pronouncement of Haynes.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 273, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-frederick-nussbaum-v-united-states-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack