U.S. v. VOISINE, 12-1213. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Number: infco20130118066
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2013
Summary: Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Per Curiam. Defendant-Appellant Stephen L. Voisine asks us to reconsider arguments heard in and decided by this court regarding: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense; and (2) whether applying 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate a particular defendant's Second Amendment rights. See United States v. Booke
Summary: Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Per Curiam. Defendant-Appellant Stephen L. Voisine asks us to reconsider arguments heard in and decided by this court regarding: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense; and (2) whether applying 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate a particular defendant's Second Amendment rights. See United States v. Booker..
More
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Per Curiam.
Defendant-Appellant Stephen L. Voisine asks us to reconsider arguments heard in and decided by this court regarding: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense; and (2) whether applying § 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate a particular defendant's Second Amendment rights. See United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Nason, 269 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001). The Court considered and denied the exact same arguments in United States v. Armstrong, III, Case No. 12-1216 (1st Cir. 2012). Since there are no pertinent factual differences distinguishing the instant case from Armstrong, we accordingly incorporate its reasoning here and affirm the district court's denial of Defendant-Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
