explaining that “the finder of fact must examine the intent of the actor and all circumstances surrounding the acts alleged to constitute engaging in business”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “the finder of fact must examine the intent of the actor and all circumstances surrounding the acts alleged to constitute engaging in business”
- showing tacit approval of the Second Circuit’s reading of the willfulness requirement by upholding a jury instruction in a § 922(a)(1) crime that stated “it is not required that [the defendant] knew that a license was required”
- stating that “economic interests” are the “principal purpose,” and “repetitiveness” is “the modus operandi”
- defining “knowingly” as “with knowledge, that is, voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 11, 1994
Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges *1292 of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in bane, the petition for rehearing is denied.