Source: http://openjurist.org/214/f2d/673/united-states-v-hardgrave
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 14:32:28
Document Index: 729126744

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2726', '§ 2720', '§ 3261', '§ 2723', '§ 15', '§ 2720', '§ 2720', '§ 2726', '§ 3', '§ 215']

214 F2d 673 United States v. Hardgrave | OpenJurist
214 F. 2d 673 - United States v. Hardgrave HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 214 F.2d.
214 F2d 673 United States v. Hardgrave 214 F.2d 673
No. 11107.
Douglas F. Stevenson, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Joseph H. Lesh, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., James E. Keating, Asst. U. S. Atty., South Bend, Ind., Phil M. McNagny, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., James H. Pankow, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hammond, Ind., for appellee.
Defendant, Hardgrave, was indicted in September, 1951 for violating provisions of the National Firearms Act.1 A six count indictment2 was returned against him, grounded on certain requirements of that Act and charging him with various violations of it, as follows:
U. S. Code   Requirement     Violation of
Count      Title        Section         Section                 Disposition
I.       26         &sect; 2720(a)       &sect; 2726(a)           Found Guilty
II.       26         &sect; 2725          &sect; 2726(b)           Dismissed by Government
III.       26         &sect; 3261(b)       &sect; 2726(a)           Found Guilty
IV.       26         &sect; 2723          &sect; 2726(a)           Found Guilty
V.       15                         &sect;  902(f)           Found Not Guilty
VI.       15                         &sect;  902(i)           Found Not Guilty
Denial, below, of defendant's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 for correction of his sentence, precipitated this appeal. Since the reasons and grounds underlying the relief, thus sought, are embedded in several provisions of the National Firearms Act, supra, its provisions constitute the backdrop against which Hardgrave's contentions must be examined.
At the time when this defendant allegedly engaged in the proscribed course of conduct, for which he was indicted and tried, the pertinent subdivisions of § 2726,3 Subchapter B &#x2014; Machine Guns and Short-Barrelled Firearms of the National Firearms Act, provided:
"It shall be unlawful for anyone to obliterate, remove, change, or alter the number or other identification mark required by section 2725. Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of any firearm upon which such number or mark shall have been obliterated, removed, changed, or altered, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury. * * *" (Italics ours.)
Count I. "§ 2720. Tax
The following section is under Part VIII, Firearms, chapter 27, Occupational Taxes, Subchapter A &#x2014; Special provisions; 26 U.S.C.
Count III. "§ 3261. Registration * * *
"(b) Persons in general. Every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this subsection with respect to any firearm acquired after July 26, 1934, and in conformity with the provisions of this part and subchapter B of chapter 25." Count IV. "§ 2723. Order forms
We examined United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation, 1952, 344 U. S. 218, 73 S.Ct. 227, 97 L.Ed. 260, where an information filed under §§ 15 and 16(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,4 was reviewed under a hypothesis similar to that relied upon by Hardgrave.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter spoke for the majority. Drawing upon Congressional debates5 he pointed out that:
"Although the separate offense clause for record-keeping violations was deleted early in the legislative process, the other separate offense clause was attached in debate precisely because it would authorize the sort of multiplication of offenses by the number of employees that the information * * * represents. Indeed, multiplication in this information goes beyond what even the original bills would have authorized." 223 U.S. at page 223, 73 S.Ct. at page 230.
Justice Frankfurter stated it was the history and language of the legislation, then before the Court, that repelled application of Blockburger v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306. Nothing determined in the Universal Corporation case, supra, supports Hardgrave's contentions. The condition of possessing and receiving a shotgun on which the transferor has failed to pay the requisite tax, and possessing that unregistered firearm, receiving and possessing it when it has not been transferred on statutory forms, bear no resemblance to an erroneous managerial decision which the government prosecutor turns into a multiplicity of offenses, by considering each resulting underpayment in a single week, as a separate offense. But each offense of which Hardgrave stands convicted contains a different element. He had to meet three distinct requirements; each requirement necessitated proof of a fact not essential to the other. We think that the status of Blockburger v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306, as the basis for Montgomery v. United States, 4 Cir., 1945, 146 F.2d 142, and Fleish v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 16 remains unimpaired, especially since Chief Justice Warren relied on the Blockburger decision when he delivered the majority opinion in Pereira v. United States, 1954, 347 U.S. 1, 9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363 saying inter alia:
1. Approved June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236, c. 757; 26 U.S.C. § 2720 et seq. (1946); 26 U.S.C.A. § 2720 et seq.
2. We have hereinafter reproduced only those counts on which Hardgrave was found guilty:
Count I. "On or about the 14th day of April, 1951, in the District of Northern Indiana, Earl Adrian Hardgrave, possessed a firearm, namely, a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, which had been transferred without the payment of a transfer tax in the sum of $200.00 as required by Section 2720(a), Title 26, United States Code, in violation of Section 2726(a), Title 26, United States Code.
Count III. "On or about April 14, 1951, in the District of Northern Indiana, Earl Adrian Hardgrave, possessed a firearm, namely, a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, which firearm had never been registered with the Commissioner as required by Section 3261(b), Title 26, United States Code, in violation of Section 2726(a), Title 26, United States Code.
Count IV. "On or about the 14th day of April, 1951, in the District of Northern Indiana, Earl Adrian Hardgrave, possessed a firearm, namely, a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, which had been transferred without procuring and forwarding to the Commissioner order forms as required by Section 2723, Title 26, United States Code, in violation of Section 2726(a), Title 26, United States Code."
3. 26 U.S.C.A. § 2726. Clause (a) was amended subsequent to the date when defendant was alleged to have violated this section, viz., May 21, 1952, c. 320, § 3(b), 66 Stat. 88.
4. 52 Stat. 1060, 1068-1069, as amended, 63 Stat. 910, 919, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 215, 216(a).
5. When the Bill embodying the National Firearms Act was on the House floor it was stated during debate, that its purpose was "* * * to provide for the taxation * * * to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof. * * * This is to stop gangsters from buying machine guns." 78 Cong.Rec. 12548 (1934); see also 78 Cong.Rec. 11400 (1934).