Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Urban, 97-7107 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 97-7107 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 02, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 1998 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-2-1998 United States v. Urban Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 97-7107 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998 Recommended Citation "United States v. Urban" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 64. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/64 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court
More
Opinions of the United 1998 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-2-1998 United States v. Urban Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 97-7107 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998 Recommended Citation "United States v. Urban" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 64. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/64 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 97-7107 USA v. FREDERICK URBAN The following modifications have been made to the Court's Opinion issued on March 20, 1998, in the above-entitled appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: In first full sentence of the second full paragraph on page 8, the word "either" is to be inserted between the words, "parts" and "designed." In the same sentence the word, "destructive" is to be substituted for the word "constructive." In the same sentence, "(2)" should be changed to read "(2)...." Accordingly, the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 8 of the slip opinion should read: Section 5845(f)(3) limits its application to "any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2).... Very truly yours, /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, Clerk Dated: April 2, 1998
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer