United States v. John Danton Long

Fifth Circuit

United States v. John Danton Long

483 F.2d 1390, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1973

Docket73-1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 F.2d 1390 (United States v. John Danton Long) 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. John Danton Long, 483 F.2d 1390, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7908 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Long was convicted by a jury of knowingly making a false and fictitious statement in connection with the acquisition of a shotgun from a licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a). Appellant stated in connection with the acquisition that he had not been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. At the time of the acquisition, however, appellant was on parole under a twenty-year sentence for a prior conviction. Appellant claims several errors in his conviction in the district court. After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that the district court committed no reversible error and we affirm the judgment of conviction.

The record affirmatively shows that the shotgun was purchased from a licensed firearms dealer holding federal firearms license No. 58-3536 and that the false statement made by appellant was on an approved firearms transaction record, Form 4473. See 26 C.F. R. § 178.124 (1972). Admission of testimony concerning appellant’s subsequent purchase of a revolver was proper because it was used for impeachment purposes. There was no reversible error when, on cross-examination of appellant, the district court ruled out a question concerning an alleged threat by appellant against his mother and sister. Evidence concerning appellant’s prior conviction and parole status was properly introduced and was admissible to show that one of the conditions of appellant’s parole was that he not own firearms. Finally, there was no merit to appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Long was convicted by a jury of knowingly making a false and fictitious statement in connection with the acquisition of a shotgun from a licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a). Appellant stated in connection with the acquisition that he had not been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. At the time of the acquisition, however, appellant was on parole under a twenty-year sentence for a prior conviction. Appellant claims several errors in his conviction in the district court. After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that the district court committed no reversible error and we affirm the judgment of conviction.

The record affirmatively shows that the shotgun was purchased from a licensed firearms dealer holding federal firearms license No. 58-3536 and that the false statement made by appellant was on an approved firearms transaction record, Form 4473. See 26 C.F. R. § 178.124 (1972). Admission of testimony concerning appellant’s subsequent purchase of a revolver was proper because it was used for impeachment purposes. There was no reversible error when, on cross-examination of appellant, the district court ruled out a question concerning an alleged threat by appellant against his mother and sister. Evidence concerning appellant’s prior conviction and parole status was properly introduced and was admissible to show that one of the conditions of appellant’s parole was that he not own firearms. Finally, there was no merit to appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 F.2d 1390, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-danton-long-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack