United States v. Hill

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided October 25, 2001

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2001-10-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2002

1 federal appellate ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“offense for purposes of § 922(g)(9). Denis acknowledges that Nason forecloses the claim he advanced in the district court — namely, that his conviction under Maine's general purpose assault statute did not constitute a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Denis

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on United States v. Nason

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This appeal was argued on September 14, 2001, in conjunction with several other *19 appeals raising the same principal question: does an undifferentiated conviction under Maine’s general-purpose assault statute, Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 207, constitute a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)? We answered that question affirmatively in United States v. Nason, 269 F.3d 10 (1st Cir.2001). Nason is fully dispositive here. Accordingly, the government’s appeal is sustained, the district court’s dismissal of the indictment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the rule announced in Nason.

¶2 Reversed and remanded.