United States v. Guy Allen, 630 F.3d 762

Allen was convicted of possession of illegal machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
The government introduced video footage of Allen teaching his mother to fire a machine gun, offered as Rule 404(b) evidence of prior acts to show knowledge, intent, and opportunity.
Allen did not renew his pretrial objection to the video; the court treated the admission as plain error on appeal.
The district court gave a limiting instruction; the court addressed relevance, similarity, and probative value under Rule 404(b).
Allen objected to cross-examination about his military service, arrests, charges, and discharge; the government argued he opened the door by mentioning his service.
Allen challenged the constitutionality of § 922(o) after Fincher, but the panel held McDonald did not alter Fincher’s rule; the statute remains valid in this circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of video under Rule 404(b)	Allen argues the video is impermissible character evidence and insufficient to prove the prior act.	The government contends the video is admissible for knowledge, intent, and opportunity and is sufficiently connected to the charged offense.	Video admitted; not plain error.
Prejudice vs. probative value of the video	Video is more prejudicial than probative and could mislead the jury.	Limiting instruction mitigates prejudice; evidence is highly probative of intent and knowledge.	Evidence was probative and not unduly prejudicial.
Cross-examination about military service	Cross-examination about arrests and discharge is improper character evidence.	Defendant opened the door by praising service; cross-examination is permissible rebuttal.	No abuse of discretion; cross-examination permitted.
Constitutionality of § 922(o) post-Fincher	Fincher should be reconsidered in light of McDonald.	McDonald does not override Fincher; statute remains constitutional.	Statute remains constitutional in this circuit.

United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) evidence inclusion and propensity concerns)
United States v. Clemons, 503 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1974) (prior arrest evidence excluded when no clear link to knowledge/intent)
United States v. Littlewind, 595 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2010) (evidentiary standard for 404(b) proof by preponderance)
United States v. Hessman, 493 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2007) (limiting instruction reduces prejudice)
United States v. Smith, 591 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2010) (door-opening doctrine; invited error)
United States v. Womochil, 778 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1985) (rebuttal of defense’s portrayal of defendant)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (requisite evidence standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Mendoza, 85 F.3d 1347 (8th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion review standard)
United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (McDonald post-Fincher rule on machine guns)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment does not protect possession of machine guns (post Fincher))