Court Opinion

ID: 9462203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:34:20.927796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:27.293842
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with that part of the majority opinion which holds that the government appeal is proper.
For obvious reasons, I have no sympathy with gunslingers or for those who go on a fugitive status after indictment. I am aware that the jury deliberated for only thirty five minutes before convicting Burnette. Nevertheless, on the issue of venue I do not think the proof cleared the fence.
Under 18 U.S.C.App. Section 1202 (a)(1), Burnette could have been indicted for possessing the weapons if the prosecution could prove that the possession occurred in, or affected, interstate commerce, United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 350, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971).
Apparently, the available proof would not support either interstate transportation or affect on interstate commerce, so the indictment charged, and the government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that “in the Lafayette Division of the Western District of Louisiana”, Burnette did knowingly and unlawfully “receive” the weapons.
The weapons were there and Burnette was there, but did he receive them there?
It seems to me that United States v. Haley, 5 Cir., 500 F.2d 302, cited in the majority opinion, has no bearing on this case. The Haley Court held that venue had been waived by express stipulation. Moreover, the weapon had been stolen in *32the Western District of Missouri and thereafter found in the possession of the defendant in that same district. Obviously, under those circumstances a jury could quite reasonably infer that Haley received it there.
This, however, is not our case. The facts are entirely different.
The majority opinion relies on testimony that the weapons were in the trailer before Burnette came there, that Burnette did not bring them there, but nevertheless concludes that this supports an inference that he received them there because he was found in possession of them at that location. Possibly someone could have sent them there in order that Burnette might receive them at that place, but the majority does not engage in that speculation because there is no evidence to support it. It would be equally reasonable to surmise that Burnette received them elsewhere and then caused them to be taken to the mobile home. Burnette’s reference to “my rifle” and [my] pistol holster go to ownership, not to the place of receipt.
I am compelled to the view that the government strained mightily to convert possession into receipt but that it did not prove the venue of the receipt by a preponderance of the evidence.
The District Judge thought the thread was too thin and I agree. I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.