United States v. Edwing Morales
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16347
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Morales was convicted on two counts of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for firearms purchases.
- He attempted straw purchases for his friend Julio Cesar Rojas-Lopez by listing himself as the purchaser on Form 4473 and failing background checks.
- Morales testified he believed straw purchases were lawful if both parties were eligible and he verified Rojas-Lopez’s non-felon status.
- The district court denied Morales’s Rule 29(a) motion for acquittal, ruling § 922(a)(6) covers false statements even when the actual purchaser is eligible.
- Morales asserted § 922(a)(6) is ambiguous and invoked rule of lenity; he also challenged the district court’s exclusion of a 1979 ATF circular as evidence of good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 922(a)(6) apply to straw purchases where the true purchaser is eligible? | Morales argues eligibility negates materiality. | Morales contends statute applies only to ineligible purchasers. | Yes; purchaser identity remains material, sustaining conviction. |
| Should the rule of lenity reverse Morales’s convictions due to statutory ambiguity? | Morales claims ambiguity warrants lenity. | State that statute is clear, no need for lenity. | No plain-error, statute unambiguous. |
| Was excluding the 1979 ATF circular reversible error on Morales’s good-faith defense? | Circular supported good-faith defense. | Circular is outdated/unknown and irrelevant. | No abuse of discretion; circular irrelevant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harvey, 653 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2011) (elements of § 922(a)(6) proof require material false statements)
- United States v. Frazier, 605 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2010) (identity of actual purchaser is material to lawfulness of sale)
- United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997) (Polk’s view rejected; liability extends to eligible purchasers)
- United States v. Wettstain, 618 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of Rule 29 and statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 631 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (plain-error and statutory-interpretation framework)
- United States v. Osborne, 673 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for failure to raise issue)