Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

United States v. West

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided February 14, 2012No. 11-3070Published

1Concurring in the judgmentLucero, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Holcom Park contained “three or more separate appara*1202tus intended for the recreation of children.” 21 U.S.C. § 860(e)(1). I further agree that a baseball backstop qualifies as “apparatus intended for the recreation of children” under that statute. (See Majority Op. 1201.) I decline to join the majority opinion, however, because I see no need to hold that the principle of ejusdem generis does not apply to the statute at issue. As I see it, “apparatus intended for the recreation of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. AlpersSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
  3. United States v. Afnan Jerome ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
  4. Board of Chosen Freeholders v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1999
  5. Schmidt v. Mt. Angel AbbeyOregon Supreme Court · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API