United States v. Richie Fontaine, 697 F.3d 221

Fontaine robbed Martinez and Geron in St. Thomas at gunpoint; he brandished a black object appearing to be a firearm; his accomplice demanded cash and fled; the gun was not recovered at arrest.
Fontaine was charged in multiple counts, including six counts under 14 V.I. Code § 2253(a) for unauthorized possession of a firearm or imitation during a crime of violence.
The government’s theory rested on Fontaine possessing an imitation firearm since no operable weapon was found.
The district court questioned whether § 2253(a) required proof that Fontaine lacked authorization to possess an imitation firearm, and jury instructions reflected a burden to prove lack of authorization to possess a firearm or imitation.
Fontaine was convicted on five § 2253(a) counts; sentences run concurrently, with additional penalties under the statute.
On appeal, Fontaine challenges the vagueness of § 2253(a) and the government’s burden to prove lack of authorization to possess an imitation firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 2253(a) void for vagueness under due process?	Fontaine argues the statute fails to give fair warning.	Government contends the statute is clear as applied.	Not void for vagueness; statute is clear as applied.
What authorization must the government prove under § 2253(a)?	Fontaine asserts government must prove lack of authorization to possess an imitation firearm.	Government asserts lack of authorization to possess a firearm suffices.	Government need not prove lack of authorization to possess an imitation firearm; lack of authorization to possess a firearm suffices.

United States v. Xavier, 2 F.3d 1281 (3d Cir. 1993) (possession during a crime of violence requires proof of three elements)
United States v. Daniel, ? (3d Cir. 2008) (3d Cir. 2008) (distinguishes licensing gaps from possession; emphasizes factual context)
United States v. McKie, 112 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 1997) (government bears burden to prove unauthorized possession or carrying)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221 (3d Cir. 1979) (statutory construction to avoid absurd results in criminal liability)
United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1989) (rare cases where plain meaning yields absurd results; informs approach)
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (vagueness doctrine and notice requirements in criminal statutes)
Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court 1964) (due process requires fair warning of prohibited conduct)