Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01798/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01798-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Ray Neeley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. "'" 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

Unit.ed Stat.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GEORGE RAY NEELEY, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant, ) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 2 31988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1798 

(D.C. No. C87-0138W) 

(D. Utah) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assi st the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submit t ed without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

George Ray Neeley (defendant) appeals the district court's 

den i al of his motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. Defendant 

chall enges his conviction for receiving explosives shipped in 

interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(l). 

Appellate Case: 87-1798 Document: 010110027555 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
. ' . In district court, defendant raised two grounds in favor of 

relief. First, defendant argued that he should not have been 

convicted of "receiving'' explosives because there was no evidence 

at his trial that he purchased the explosives. Defendant asserted 

that if anything, he should have been convicted of storing 

explosives. Second, defendant argued that he was improperly 

convicted under a general statute when his crime was covered by a 

specific statute. Defendant was found guilty of a felony, but 

insisted that he should have been charged with a misdemeanor. 

Compare 18 U.S.C. § 842(i) and§ 842(j). 

Upon careful review of defendant's allegations and the record 

on appeal, we agree with the district court that defendant's 

argument that he could not be guilty of receiving explosives 

because he did not purchase them is without merit. Defendant's 

contention that he was improperly charged under a general statute 

when Congress has enacted a specific statute contemplating a 

lesser penalty is equally without merit. Indeed, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 842(i) describes defendant's activities more accurately than 

does 18 U.S.C. § 842(j). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1798 Document: 010110027555 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2