Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Private E2 BRIAN A. MURPHY

Army Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided May 30, 2014No. ARMY 20120556Published

1DissentKrauss, Judge

“[I]t is not reasonable to construe § 844(j) as including within its ambit a single 9-millimeter cartridge, simply because it contains a small amount of gunpowder and can be fired from a gun.” United States v. Graham, 691 F.3d 153, 164 (2d Cir.2012) vacated on other grounds, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2851, 186 L.Ed.2d 902 (2013).

“[T]he serious and substantial nature of the other explosives listed suggests that the tiny amount of gunpowder used to fire a gun does not constitute ‘an explosive’ within the meaning of § 844(h)(1)” and thus the meaning of explosive in § 844(j). United States v. Thompson,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. EnmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. United States v. Joseph GelbCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  3. Gary Lee Gunderson v. Robert A. Hood, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  4. United States v. Allyn B. HeppCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
  5. United States v. HunterCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008

8 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