United States v. Bryan N. Was and Norman Was

Second Circuit

United States v. Bryan N. Was and Norman Was

869 F.2d 34, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13419

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 1989

Docket769, 890, Dockets 88-1402, 88-1403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 F.2d 34 (United States v. Bryan N. Was and Norman Was) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bryan N. Was and Norman Was, 869 F.2d 34, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13419 (2d Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendants Bryan N. Was and Norman Was appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Peter C. Dorsey, Judge, following their conditional pleas of guilty to firearms offenses. Bryan Was pleaded guilty to one count of transferring a firearm that was a machine-gun within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (1982), in violation of id. §§ 5861(e) and 5871 (1982 & Supp. II 1984); both defendants pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transfer such firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982). On appeal, defendants contend principally that the district court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that the items they transferred, known as “auto sears,” as a matter of law cannot be deemed machineguns within the meaning of § 5845(b) because an auto sear is not a “combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

We reject defendants’ arguments and affirm the judgments of conviction substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, reported at 684 F.Supp. 350 (1988).

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

PER CURIAM:

Defendants Bryan N. Was and Norman Was appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Peter C. Dorsey, Judge, following their conditional pleas of guilty to firearms offenses. Bryan Was pleaded guilty to one count of transferring a firearm that was a machine-gun within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (1982), in violation of id. §§ 5861(e) and 5871 (1982 & Supp. II 1984); both defendants pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transfer such firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982). On appeal, defendants contend principally that the district court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that the items they transferred, known as “auto sears,” as a matter of law cannot be deemed machineguns within the meaning of § 5845(b) because an auto sear is not a “combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

We reject defendants’ arguments and affirm the judgments of conviction substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, reported at 684 F.Supp. 350 (1988).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 F.2d 34, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bryan-n-was-and-norman-was-ca2-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack