United States v. Herbert Harris Hudson, Jr.

460 F.2d 1262, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9433
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 22, 1972
Docket72-1101
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 1262 (United States v. Herbert Harris Hudson, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Herbert Harris Hudson, Jr., 460 F.2d 1262, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9433 (4th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM :

Defendant, who pleaded guilty to the making of a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a) (6), attacks his conviction on the ground that the indictment did not allege that the sale occurred in interstate commerce. It appears, however, from the informal proofs offered in connection with the plea and sentencing that the firearm was manufactured in a state other than the one in which it was sold. Defendant was sentenced under the Federal Youth Correction Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 5005 et seq., as made applicable to him by 18 U.S.C.A. § 4209. He attacks his sentence on the ground that the district court made no formal finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that defendant will benefit from the treatment provided under the Act.

We find no merit in defendant’s first contention. We agree with and follow the holdings in United States v. Crandall, 453 F.2d 1216 (1 Cir. 1972); United States v. Nelson, 458 F.2d 556 (5 Cir. 1972); and United States v. Menna, 451 F.2d 982 (9 Cir. 1971), all of which conclude that there need be no allegation that the firearm moved in interstate commerce in an indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a) (6). United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 326, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971), does not require a different conclusion.

If we assume that 18 U.S.C.A. § 4209 requires the finding urged by defendant, we think that it was sufficiently made to enable him to be sentenced under the Act.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Phillip Marcel Green
471 F.2d 775 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
460 F.2d 1262, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herbert-harris-hudson-jr-ca4-1972.