Opinion ID: 2789971
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion To Dismiss Counts One and Two of the

Text: Indictment Fries sought dismissal of Counts One and Two for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fries asserted that the federal government lacked jurisdiction over the alleged conduct because the requisite interstate commerce nexus was absent. Fries also maintained that he had been charged with “a state court criminal offense, that is miscast as a federal crime. . . .” The district court rejected Fries’ challenge, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 229 “is constitutional pursuant to the federal government’s Treaty Power under Article II, § 2 of the United States Constitution in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, § 8.” (citation omitted). 1 Counts Three and Four charged Fries with the knowing possession of destructive devices that were not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. The district court granted Fries’ motion to sever Counts Three and Four. Fries challenged his conviction on these counts in a separate appeal, No. 13-10654. UNITED STATES V. FRIES 7