United States v. Taylor

2 Citing cases

  1. Ball v. United States

    470 U.S. 856 (1985)   Cited 854 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the proper remedy is to remand “for the District Court, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions”

    The Third and Page 859 Seventh Circuits have remanded cases to the District Courts in order to vacate one of the convictions and sentences. United States v. Taylor, 635 F.2d 232, 233 (CA3 1980); United States v. Martin, 732 F.2d 591, 593 (CA7 1984). II

  2. United States v. Martin

    732 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 22 times
    Requiring that either receipt conviction or possession conviction be vacated because the offenses are the same

    Neither the language nor the legislative history of sections 922(h) and 1202(a) indicates that Congress intended to punish cumulatively the receipt and continuous possession of a firearm. See United States v. Taylor, 635 F.2d 232, 233 (3d Cir. 1980); accord United States v. Conn, 716 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Girst, 645 F.2d 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1979); United States v. Larson, 625 F.2d 67, 69 (5th Cir. 1980). The government urges us to hold that, pursuant to a different set of facts, convictions under both statutes could stand.