United States v. David Wayne Hull
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
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
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Leocal v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. Jody James DunnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.