Legal Opinion

United States v. Roger Paul Hamel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 13, 1976No. 76-1019PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Before: WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, * District Judge. PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a taxidermist, was convicted of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the Act) by offering to sell and barter and causing to be transported snowy owls after they became a protected species under the Act in March of 1972. [16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707.] We affirm.

The indictment did not allege the time of appellant’s taking of the snowy owl. It charged that his acts were done willfully and knowingly. The defendant offered no evidence.

He had been convicted before of similar misdemeanor offenses…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Anthony Fernandez, A/K/A Tony Fernandez, Burl Elton Dalgliesh and Carl G. Pratt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  2. United States v. SchultzeDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1939
  3. United States v. Jerry Wayne GrammerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  4. United States v. John L. IrelandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1973
  5. United States v. ReeseDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1939

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Andrus v. AllardSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. Gerald L. RichardsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
  3. United States v. Gerald L. RichardsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API