U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Cabbler

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 9, 1970 · Bryan, Craven, Lewis

429 F.2d 577 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John H. Kennett, Jr., Roanoke, Va. (Court-appointed counsel in No. 14,240 only) for appellants., Birg E. Sergent, James G. Welsh, Asst. U. S. Attys. (Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Bass (Supreme Court of the United States 1971)
United States v. James William Donofrio (5th Cir. 1972)
Frank James Stevens v. United States (6th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Marce Bell (2d Cir. 1975)
United States v. Major Henry Johnson (4th Cir. 1974)
United States v. Williams (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1974)
United States v. Frank McKinnley Brown, Jr. (6th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Roy Rogers Fauntleroy (4th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Snell (District Court, D. Maryland 1973)
United States v. Carl P. Fiorito (7th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Dale Einar Synnes (8th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Tranquillo (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1971)
United States v. Ernest William Cabbler, United States of America v. Herbert William Cabbler (4th Cir. 1970)
United States v. John Wyatt Mullins (4th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Wright (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

This is the consolidated appeal of two brothers, Ernest and Herbert Cabbler, who were separately tried and convicted on December 11, 1969 for violations of Federal gun control laws. Ernest was found guilty of possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1). Herbert was convicted on charges of making false statements both in connection with the acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6) and with respect to the records required to be kept by a firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a).

Having carefully considered all of the numerous points raised by the appellants in this appeal, including inter alia the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act, the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, and an allegedly illegal search and seizure, we are not persuaded that the convictions should be disturbed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.