United States v. Walter David Tallmadge

Good Law
829 F.2d 767·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12989
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 1, 198786-5116California19,103 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Alarcon, J.

Walter David Tallmadge (Tallmadge) was indicted on January 10, 1986 for knowingly receiving six rifles after being convicted in the State of California of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1) (1982), and for knowingly receiving and possessing a rifle after having been convicted of a felony in the State of California in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1) (1982). Tallmadge was also accused, in separate counts, of making false statements likely to deceive a federally licensed gun dealer in the acquisition of each rifle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6) (1982).

The facts are not in dispute. The government’s entire case was submitted to the district court on stipulated facts. Tallmadge stipulated he purchased and received the rifles described in the indictment on four separate dates in 1982. Tallmade also stipulated that prior to purchasing each rifle he answered “no” to question 8.b. on the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Firearms Transaction Record, which provides as follows:

The stipulation also provides that Tallmadge signed the Firearms Transaction Record and certified that his answer to question 8.b.…

Dissenting Opinion

Kozinski, J.

dissenting.

In reversing the conviction of a defendant who may have stumbled into criminal activity inadvertently, the court today reaches a just result. But it does so at too high a price, for this is a case where “justice to the individual is rightly outweighed by the larger interests on the other side of the scales.” O.W. Holmes, The Common Law 48 (1881).

Introduction

In 1978, Tallmadge was convicted in California Superior Court of a felony: possession of a machine gun in violation of California law. The conviction carried a potential penalty in excess of one year. Cal.Penal Code § 12220 (Deering Supp.1987); id. § 18 (Deering 1985). In 1982, the California Superior Court issued an order under California Penal Code section 17(b)(3) declaring the offense a misdemeanor “for all purposes.” Later that year, Tallmadge purchased four rifles on four separate occasions. As a consequence, he was indicted and convicted of four counts of unlawful *776 receipt of firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1) (1982), and one count of unlawful possession, 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1) (1982 & Supp. III 1986).

Tallmadge contends that these statutes do not apply to him because his state conviction was…

Opinion

829 F.2d 767 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter David TALLMADGE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-5116. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 5, 1987. Decided Oct. 1, 1987. Janet Hudson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Leonard R. Dubin, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before TANG, ALARCON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 Walter David Tallmadge (Tallmadge) was indicted on January 10, 1986 for knowingly receiving six rifles after being convicted in the State of California of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (h)(1) (1982), and for knowingly receiving and possessing a rifle after having been convicted of a felony in the State of California in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1202(a)(1) (1982). Tallmadge was also accused, in separate counts, of making false statements likely to deceive a federally licensed gun dealer in the acquisition of each rifle in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (a)(6) (1982). 2 The facts are not in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.