United States v. Johnson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10767
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Johnson, without a firearms dealer license, purchased firearms from Shooters Supply and immediately delivered them to Miguel Pedroza.
- On Sept. 28, 2006, Johnson completed Form 4473 and answered that he was the actual buyer of the firearms.
- Johnson again claimed to be the actual buyer on Oct. 6, 2006 for 34 firearms, some of which were picked up later at a Mesa gun show.
- Pedroza paid Johnson $9,000 in total for the firearms after the two Form 4473s, and over 59 firearms were later seized by ATF in Pedroza's vehicle and matched to the forms.
- ATF and law enforcement conducted search warrants; Johnson admitted involvement with Pedroza and described how he handled and delivered guns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality not required under § 924(a)(1)(A)? | Johnson argues materiality to the sale's lawfulness is required. | Johnson contends § 924(a)(1)(A) requires materiality element like § 922(a)(6). | No materiality requirement; only false statement about information dealers must keep. |
| Whether Form 4473 data is information the statute requires to be kept? | The district court should determine as a legal question that 4473 data are required records. | Whether 4473 data are required is a jury question. | Yes, it is a legal question; the district court correctly decided information on Form 4473 is required by law to be kept. |
| Adequacy of witness-impeachment instructions? | The court should have given an admitted-perjury instruction and stronger impeachment guidance. | Instructions given were sufficient to guide credibility assessments. | District court's instructions were adequate; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation de novo; en banc context)
- United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977) (distinguishes § 922(a)(6) from § 924(a)(1)(A))
- United States v. Sullivan, 459 F.2d 993 (8th Cir. 1972) (materiality not required under § 924(a))
- United States v. Prince, 647 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2011) (affirmed § 924(a)(1)(A) conviction; need only false statement on records)
- United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197 (7th Cir. 1994) (distinction between § 922(a)(6) materiality and § 924(a)(1)(A))
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (discusses implied materiality with fraud statutes)
- Nash v. United States, 115 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1997) (materiality considerations for 'representation' language)
- United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (statutory interpretation of 924(a)(1)(A) as a legal matter)
- United States v. Soto, 539 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2008) (4473 contents as legal question; not fact-heavy)
- United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (S. Ct. 1997) (common-law materiality considerations in representations)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1988) (materiality notion in misrepresentations; common-law context)