 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
APPELLANT BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT ACCESS ACT HART CLINICS THREAT COMMERCE CONGRESS EVIDENCE DISTRICT COURT CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT RYDER TRUCKS COMMERCE CLAUSE CIR FIRST AMENDMENT MOTION AUTHORITY INTERSTATE COMMERCE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BOMB THREAT DINWIDDIE FRED HART AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE EASTERN DISTRICT CONVICTIONS CONSTITUTIONALITY INTIMIDATE GOVERNMENT OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE |
No. 99-1443
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
J. FRED HART, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE
BILL LANN LEE
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER
LOUIS E. PERAERTZ
Attorneys
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66078
Washington, D.C. 20035-6078
(202) 514-2173
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
BRIEF OPPOSING PETITION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
THREATS TRUCKS ACT HART ACCESS ACT UNITED STATES CLINICS REHEARING HEALTH CIR FIRST AMENDMENT DINWIDDIE PROTECTING RYDER TRUCKS ABORTION BOMB PANEL CERT COMMUNITY VIOLENCE PETITION BANC CONVICTIONS ROCK EXPLAINING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SPEECH REFERS REASON |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
J. FREDERICK HART,
Defendant-Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RESPONSE BY THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
In response to this Court's order, dated May 22, 2000, the
United States urges the Court to deny J. Frederick Hart's
petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The panel's judgment affirming Hart's convictions for
communicating a threat in violation of the Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. 248, is correct, does not
conflict with any decision of this Court or the Supreme Court,
and raises no issue of exceptional importance.
STATEMENT
1. On September 24, 1997, Hart rented two Ryder trucks from
an Exxon station in Little Rock, Arkansas (Tr. 246).1/ He parked
1/ "R.A. " refers to the Record on Appeal; "R. " refers to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CLINICS HART THREAT FACE ACT RYDER TRUCKS UNITED STATES COURT REASON DISTRICT ROCK INTIMIDATE FIRST AMENDMENT ABORTION CLINICS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES PARKING ENTRANCE GOVERNMENT SPEECH JUDGEMENT JURY MOTION VIOLATION PRESENCE PLACEMENT BOMBS CONVICTION VIOLENCE DINWIDDIE STAFF |
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
____________
No. 99-1443
____________
United States of America, *
*
Plaintiff-Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas
J. Fred Hart, Jr., *
*
Defendant-Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 16, 1999
Filed: May 1, 2000
____________
Before McMILLIAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,1
District Judge.
____________
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
J. Fred Hart, Jr. appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States
District Court2 for the Eastern District of Arkansas upon a jury verdict finding him
guilty on two misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S.C. § 248, the Freedom of Access to
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
2The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE Act"). See United States v. Hart, No. 4:98CR00132-
001 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 11, 1999) (judgment). For reversal, Hart argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that
(1) a Ryder truck does not in and of itself constitute a threat of force under the FACE
Act, (2) his conduct was specifically protected by the First Amendment, and (3) the
FACE Act is an improper expansion of federal jurisdiction in violation of the
Commerce Clause. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
