United States v. Harrod

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Harrod

5 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2001

DocketNo. 00-3060

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. App'x 2 (United States v. Harrod) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Harrod, 5 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[3]*3 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that appellant’s convictions be affirmed. When viewed in the light most favorable to the government, see United States v. Clark, 184 F.3d 858, 863 (D.C.Cir.1999), the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant “knew of, and was in a position to exercise dominion and control” over the gun and ammunition. See United States v. Byfield, 928 F.2d 1163, 1166 (D.C.Cir.1991)

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

[3]*3 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that appellant’s convictions be affirmed. When viewed in the light most favorable to the government, see United States v. Clark, 184 F.3d 858, 863 (D.C.Cir.1999), the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant “knew of, and was in a position to exercise dominion and control” over the gun and ammunition. See United States v. Byfield, 928 F.2d 1163, 1166 (D.C.Cir.1991)

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harrod-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack