Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Thomas MALONE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1976-06-17
Citations: 538 F.2d 250
Docket Number: No. 75-2636
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Thomas MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MERRILL and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 538
Pages: 250–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Thomas MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 75-2636.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 17, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 23, 1976.
Danilo J. Becerra, Federal Public Defender (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Brendan Lynch, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Honorable Charles Renfrew, United States District Judge of the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
Before MERRILL and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. [18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1)]. On appeal he contends that the government failed to prove that there was sufficient nexus between his possession and interstate com merce. We agree and reverse the convictions.
The indictment charged that appellant "knowingly possessed and received" two firearms on or about November 22, 1974. The parties stipulated that the weapons had moved in interstate commerce some six and 18 months respectively before this date. No further evidence was adduced to prove a connection between appellant's possession of the firearm and interstate commerce.
The court found him guilty on two counts of possession, not of receipt of the firearms. While the stipulation might have been sufficient to meet the government's burden in a receiving case, it is not sufficient to establish the nexus with interstate commerce required in a possession case. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971); United States v. Lathan, 531 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Cassity, 509 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1974).
While we recognize that the distinction between the interstate nexus required in possession as opposed to receipt offenses is not drawn in the statute with convincing clarity, we are bound to follow our holding in Cassity. We are less reluctant after reviewing the Second Circuit's recent treatment of the issue in United States v. Bel], 524 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1975). In a well reasoned opinion the court examined the statutory history of the offenses, the origin of the distinction as developed in Bass, its treatment in the lower courts, and the principles of federalism which support maintenance of the distinction before concluding that the Bass dictum should be heeded. We agree.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.