United States v. Arturo Gonzalez
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10627
5th Cir.2015Background
- This case concerns whether empty AK-47 magazines are “components” of a firearm for purposes of export-control laws under ITAR and the Munitions List.
- Arturo Gonzalez sold hundreds of AK-47 magazines out of army surplus stores near the U.S.–Mexico border to cartel affiliates; transactions included a large cash payment with no receipt.
- Gonzalez did not have a license from the State Department to export firearm components; evidence shows magazines were destined for Mexico.
- The government charged Gonzalez with unlawful exporting under 18 U.S.C. § 554, based on the ITAR and the Munitions List definitions.
- The district court sentenced Gonzalez to 63 months, within the Guidelines range, and Gonzalez challenges both the conviction theory and the sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are empty AK-47 magazines “components” under the Munitions List? | Gonzalez argues magazines are not listed components. | Gonzalez maintains the list does not include magazines as components. | Yes; magazines fit the regulatory definition of component under the two-step analysis. |
| Does the end-item concept and unloaded status affect the magazine’s classification? | Gonzalez emphasizes unloaded magazines cannot be end-items. | End-item includes firearms; only ammunition is required to place it in operating state. | Unloaded magazines fall within the definition of components; unloading status does not foreclose inclusion. |
| Who decides whether the Munitions List covers magazines—jury or judge? | Wu cited to argue jury should decide designations. | Record shows State Department determinations were not compelled as jury findings. | Gonzalez forfeited and the issue is not decided as a jury question here. |
| Should Gonzalez receive a reduced offense level for sentencing? | Lower level applies if magazines were non-fully automatic and under limits. | Lower level requires showing magazines not small arms and ammunition limits met. | No; substantial relevant conduct (ammunition export) prevents application of the lower level. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nissen, 928 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1991) (definition of cross-border weapons and regulatory scope cited in the Munitions List context)
- United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of denial of motion to dismiss indictment)
- United States v. Flores, 439 F. App’x 337 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision addressing Munitions List coverage of magazines (nonprecedential))
- United States v. Wu, 711 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (addressed jury instruction concerning post-export State Department designations)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard for reversal)
- United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional determinations in regulatory scope discussions)
- Spawr Optical Research, Inc., 864 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1988) (post-export designations and jury consideration)