United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, National Rifle Association of America, Amicus Curiae

Fourth Circuit

United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, National Rifle Association of America, Amicus Curiae

735 F.2d 794, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21792

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1984

Docket81-1055

StatusPublished

This text of 735 F.2d 794 (United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, National Rifle Association of America, Amicus Curiae) 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. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, National Rifle Association of America, Amicus Curiae, 735 F.2d 794, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21792 (4th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has moved us to vacate our order of April 25, 1984 affirming the judgment of the district court. The ground of such motion is that we have not ruled upon appellant’s contentions that the district court was in error in finding that the claimant, Patrick Mulcahey, was engaged in the business of selling firearms and that the firearms seized on January 20, 1977, were the same firearms as those involved in the unlicensed firearms business.

Appellant is correct that a majority of the court has not ruled on these contentions. But we are agreed that the findings of the district court in these two regards were not clearly erroneous. Hence there is no reason to vacate our order.

MOTION DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has moved us to vacate our order of April 25, 1984 affirming the judgment of the district court. The ground of such motion is that we have not ruled upon appellant’s contentions that the district court was in error in finding that the claimant, Patrick Mulcahey, was engaged in the business of selling firearms and that the firearms seized on January 20, 1977, were the same firearms as those involved in the unlicensed firearms business.

Appellant is correct that a majority of the court has not ruled on these contentions. But we are agreed that the findings of the district court in these two regards were not clearly erroneous. Hence there is no reason to vacate our order.

MOTION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 F.2d 794, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-assortment-of-89-firearms-national-rifle-association-ca4-1984.