US v. Hersom

Filing 920091203

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = ' Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' The government contends that defendant did not raise and\
preserve the issue of the constitutionality or construction of 18\
U.S.C. § 844(f). Hersom contends that the issue is jurisdictional\
and that in any event the issue was not waived because trial\
counsel provided ineffective assistance. We need not determine\
whether the issue is waived in light of our disposition.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = ' See, e.g., 6 C.F.R. § 17.105(9) (defining “Federal financial\
assistance” with respect to Title IX for the Department of Homeland\
Security as a “grant or loan of Federal financial assistance,” a\
“grant of Federal real or personal property or any interest\
therein,” “[p]rovision of the services of Federal personnel,”\
“[s]ale or lease of Federal property or any interest therein at\
nominal consideration or at consideration reduced for the purpose\
of assisting the recipient,” and “[a]ny other contract, agreement,\
or arrangement that has as one of its purposes the provision of\
assistance to any education program or activity”); 7 C.F.R. §\
15.2(g) (defining “Federal financial assistance” for the Department\
of Agriculture with respect to effectuation of Title VI of the\
Civil Rights Act of 1964 as including “(1) grants and loans of\
Federal funds, (2) the grant or donation of Federal property and\
interests in property, (3) the detail of Federal personnel, (4) the\
sale and lease of, and the permission to use (on other than a\
casual or transient basis), Federal property or any interest in\
such property or the furnishing of services without consideration\
or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is\
reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient, . . . and (5)\
any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as\
one of its purposes the provision of assistance”).\
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' We recognize that our construction is contrary to a decision\
by the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Apodaca, 522 F.2d 568,\
571-72 (10th Cir. 1975). However, it does not appear that the\
legislative history of the statute or concerns about the\
constitutional power of Congress were either raised or discussed in\
that case. \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "