Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Billy Joe WINER, Appellant, 1975 — 519 F.2d 256 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Billy Joe WINER, Appellant
519 F.2d 256·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Billy Joe WINER, Appellant.
No. 75-1210.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 1975.
Decided July 14, 1975.
Silas H. Brewer, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant, Billy Joe Winer.
Gene O’Daniel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before LAY, HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The defendant challenges his conviction under § 1202(a)(1) for receiving a firearm while a convicted felon. The facts show that on October 15, 1974, defendant, a convicted felon, borrowed a firearm from a friend allegedly to protect himself during a visit to a tavern in Little Rock, Arkansas. Within fifteen minutes of the time the defendant entered the tavern, the police arrested him > in possession of the gun. The defendant challenges the receiving charge under § 1202(a) on the theory that the government proved nothing more than temporary possession and such fleeting possession cannot be the basis for a receiving charge. We disagree.
As we have decided in United States v. Kelly, 519 F.2d 251 (8th Cir, 1975), the receiving provision of § 1202(a) encompasses mere acquisition by a felon since the statute was designed for the purpose of preventing felons from acquiring a gun. It is not synonymous with a possession charge since receiving requires more than mere proof of possession. Time of the receipt and venue must be proven as well. Cf. United States v. Overshon, 494 F.2d 894 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 853, 878, 95 S.Ct. 96, 142, 42 L.Ed.2d 85, 118 (1974). The facts proven here are sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Judgment affirmed.