United States v. Sprenger
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23936
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Weapons found in gas tank of a truck driven by Sprenger in March 2009; border patrol inquiry led to federal investigation.
- Indictment charged a two-object conspiracy: (1) transfer of firearms to a person residing outside Oklahoma; (2) export of firearms to Mexico without license.
- Trial proved only the first object; second object was removed from jury consideration.
- Jury convicted Sprenger on the remaining object; Sprenger moved for judgment of acquittal, which was denied.
- Sprenger argues (a) §922(a)(5) does not prohibit transfers to foreign residents and (b) the indictment was constructively amended by omitting the second object.
- Appellate review affirmed the conviction and sentence, affirming both issues in part and ruling on plain error for the first issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §922(a)(5) prohibit transfers to foreign residents? | Sprenger argues statute does not apply to foreign residents. | Sprenger contends statute excludes foreign recipients. | Plain-language governs; §922(a)(5) covers transfers to nonresidents, including foreigners, so conviction upheld. |
| Was the indictment constructively amended by removing the second object? | Removal of second object reduced government's burden. | No constructive amendment; jury only needed to convict on one object. | Not a constructive amendment; Griffin guidance followed; conviction sustained on first object. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2005) (plain error review standard applied to incorrect statute application)
- United States v. Commanche, 577 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain-error framework for assessing substantial rights)
- Toomer v. City Cab, 443 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2006) (statutory plain language governs analysis)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (statutory reach beyond principal evil permissible when text supports)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1991) (disjunctive offense may be charged conjunctively and proven disjunctively; removal of theory if insufficient evidence)
- United States v. Linn, 31 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1994) (recognizes burden if multiple conspiracy objects exist)
- United States v. Gunter, 546 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1976) (disjunctive indictment may be proven in the disjunctive)
- Hien Van Tieu, 279 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2002) (standard for constructive amendment of indictment)
- United States v. Prusan, 967 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1992) (transfer prohibition to territories like Puerto Rico illustrate statute reach)