United States v. Various Slot MacHines on Guam, and Amanda Guzman Shelton, Claimant-Appellant

Appeal from a judgment forfeiting 9 machines alleged to be gambling machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1171 (a)(1) and (2) and subject to forfeiture under 15 U.S.C. § 1177 for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1172 , by having been transported to Guam. The government moved for summary judgment and that motion was granted.

*698 I. The Summary Judgment.

Section 1171(a)(1) defines “gambling device” to mean: “any so-called ‘slot machine’ or any other machine or mechanical device an essential part of which is a drum or reel with insignia thereon, and (A) which when operated may deliver, as the result of the application of an element of chance, any money or property, or (B) by the operation of which a person may become entitled to receive, as the result of the application of an element of chance, any money or property. ...”

Section 1171(a)(2) defines “gambling device” to mean: “any other machine or mechanical device (including, but not limited to, roulette wheels and similar devices) designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling, and” (A) as above or (B) as above.

The government’s motion is supported by two affidavits. One affidavit, by FBI Agent Leahy, describes…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the district court should have denied the motion for summary judgment because the Government did not present evidence to establish that the machines in question were within either of the statutory definitions of “gambling device.” 1 At the very least, the affidavits presented to the district court raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether each machine meets each element of either of the definitions.

I

To come within the definition of “gambling device” under § 1171,-a machine must, as an initial matter, be either a “slot machine” (§ 1171(a)(1)) or “any other machine or mechanical device . . . designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling” (§ 1171(a)(2)). The district court, in granting the motion for summary judgment, stated that “there can be no question that these machines are gambling devices,” without indicating under which definition it so found. 2 The majority, however, apparently finds, that the *702 machines are “gambling devices” within definition (a)(1). 3

The first element of § 1171(a)(1) is that a “so-called ‘slot machine’ or any other machine” must have, as an “essential part,”…

658 F.2d 697 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 197 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VARIOUS SLOT MACHINES ON GUAM, Defendants, and Amanda Guzman Shelton, Claimant-Appellant. No. 79-4390. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1981. Decided Oct. 5, 1981. Stephen A. Cronin, Cronin & Associates, P.C., Agana, Guam, for claimant-appellant. Richard W. Beebe, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court of Guam. Before DUNIWAY and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, * District Judge. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 Appeal from a judgment forfeiting 9 machines alleged to be gambling machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1171 (a)(1) and (2) and subject to forfeiture under 15 U.S.C. § 1177 for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1172 , by having been transported to Guam. The government moved for summary judgment and that motion was granted.I. The Summary Judgment. 2 Section 1171(a)(1) defines "gambling device" to mean: "any so-called 'slot machine' or any other machine or mechanical device an essential part of which is a drum or reel with insignia thereon, and (A) which when operated may deliver, as the…