United States v. Charles Parker, Jr.

104 F.3d 72, 1997 WL 11652
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 1997
Docket94-10557
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 104 F.3d 72 (United States v. Charles Parker, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Charles Parker, Jr., 104 F.3d 72, 1997 WL 11652 (5th Cir. 1997).

Opinions

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:

We granted rehearing en banc to consider whether the district court correctly instruct[73]*73ed the Appellant Charles Parker, Jr.’s (“Parker”) jury on the elements of a Hobbs Act offense, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and whether, if the instruction was erroneous, the error was subject to a harmless error analysis.

The panel opinion on petition for rehearing, relying on United States v. Gaudin, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), concluded that the trial judge erred by reserving for himself the question of whether or not the alleged acts of Appellant Parker affected interstate commerce. Having reviewed the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we have determined that the trial court committed no Gau-din-type error. Any error that existed in the charge given below was harmless. We therefore leave for another day the question whether Gaudin error, i.e. a failure to submit an essential element of a crime to the jury, is subject to a harmlessness analysis.

The remaining portions of the panel opinion on petition for rehearing, including the discussions of the denial of Parker’s motion to reopen, the interstate commerce element in the indictment and double jeopardy, are reinstated. See United States v. Parker, 73 F.3d 48, 53-55 (5th Cir.1996).

We AFFIRM Parker’s Hobbs Act convictions, REVERSE his § 924(c) convictions, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND this cause to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED and REMANDED.

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

Related

United States v. Richard Martinez
872 F.3d 293 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Francisco Colorado Cessa
785 F.3d 165 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Romero
339 F. App'x 470 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Hugh
236 F. App'x 796 (Third Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Henry Peterson
233 F.3d 101 (First Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Jacquez
Fifth Circuit, 2000
United States v. Jennings
195 F.3d 795 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Parker
Fifth Circuit, 1999
United States v. Jacobs
Fifth Circuit, 1999
United States v. Willis
Fifth Circuit, 1999
United States v. Hickman
179 F.3d 230 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Michael D. Shinault
147 F.3d 1266 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Shinault
Tenth Circuit, 1998
United States v. Hebert
131 F.3d 514 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Miles
122 F.3d 235 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Charles Parker, Jr.
104 F.3d 72 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F.3d 72, 1997 WL 11652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-parker-jr-ca5-1997.