Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. David Wayne Hull

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 28, 2006No. 05-2028Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAckerman, Senior District Judge

Today, the Court holds that there is no substantial risl$ that a person who unlawfully possesses a pipe bomb may intentionally use physical force against another in the course of committing the offense. Because I believe that a pipe bomb has no lawful use, and that any unlawful possession of a pipe bomb poses a substantial risk that the possessor may intentionally use physical force against another in the course of possessing the pipe bomb, I respectfully dissent from Part III of the majority’s opinion.

I

I begin with the plain language of the statute. Section 16(b) of Title 18 of the United…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Leocal v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. United States v. Jody James DunnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

30 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