541 F. App'x 453
5th Cir.2013Background
- Pena appeals a jury conviction on two counts of making a false statement in firearm-dealer records under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- He was a Customs and Border Protection officer and testified at trial.
- The two § 924(a)(1)(A) counts involve purchases on 5 and 19 December 2011 where he claimed to be the actual buyer.
- Gonzalez provided cash and requested Pena purchase for him; Pena allegedly knew the statements were false.
- The third count § 1001(a) reflects false statements to FBI Agent Owen about being the actual purchaser.
- The district court denied a Rule 29 motion; the court reviews sufficiency de novo on appeal and AFFIRMS.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence suffices for the § 924(a)(1)(A) counts | Pena | Pena argues insufficient intent | Evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether § 924(a)(1)(A) requires materiality to the sale | Pena relies on Polk | § 924(a)(1)(A) covers any false statement in required records | Statute does not require sale-materiality; false statements in records suffice |
| Whether the § 1001(a) conviction is supported independently | Evidence for other counts suffices | Independent proof for 1001 required | Sufficient evidence and Agent Owen testimony support § 1001(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) (false statements regarding information required to be kept by licensees)
- United States v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973 (5th Cir. 1985) (ATF form requirements and misrepresentation on Form 4473)
- United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejection of narrow reading of purchaser responsibility on Form 4473)
- United States v. Soto, 539 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2008) (recognizes § 924(a)(1)(A) scope over false statements in license records)
- United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes materiality requirement under § 922(a)(6) from § 924(a)(1)(A) scope)
- United States v. Harris, 666 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of sufficiency of evidence post-verdict)