United States v. Theunick
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13311
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- MacKinnon and Theunick, in Ogemaw County, purchased machine guns and silencers using tax-exempt transfer forms for a government entity, but for personal use and with no county reimbursement.
- Garnett, Rose City police chief, assisted in transfers; weapon acquisitions and transfers were sometimes recorded as official use, though no evidence of actual law enforcement use existed.
- In 2001–2003, the defendants continued acquiring and transferring NFA firearms with the Rose City Police Department listed as transferee, often on letterhead or through pretextual arrangements.
- ATF investigated in 2001; by 2001–2004 the weapons were logged or possessed in ways inconsistent with official use, including post-employment transfers and undisclosed possession.
- In 2005, a federal indictment charged conspiracy under the NFA and related false-entry and tax-exemption offenses; defendants argued the statutes were unconstitutionally vague as applied and challenged the charges.
- Trial led to convictions on conspiracy and multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 7206(2) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)/(l); sentences were concurrent and varied among defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness as applied to charged statutes | Statutes clearly prohibit false registrations and entries | Statutes are vague as applied to government-authorized possession | Statutes are not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
| Double jeopardy—§ 7206(2) vs § 5861(l) on same conduct | Different statutory schemes require proof of different facts | Counts overlap and punish same conduct | No double jeopardy; distinct elements support multiplicitous charging |
| Whether district court erred in denying acceptance of responsibility reduction | Trial record shows lack of acceptance; evidence supports no reduction | Should have reduced based on acceptance despite trial | District court did not clearly err; no acceptance reduction |
| Garnett's public authority/entrampment by estoppel instruction | No defense instruction needed; evidence insufficient | Entitlement to public authority defense instruction | No abuse of discretion; defense instruction rejected due to lack of factual basis and Rule 12.3 deficiencies |
| Quashing subpoenas for discovery | Discovery requests were relevant and should be permitted | Requests were broad and not reasonably relevant | No abuse of discretion; subpoenas properly quashed as irrelevant to indictment |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
- United States v. DeCarlo, 434 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2006) (Blockburger modified for complex, overlapping statutes with alternative elements)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review for double jeopardy contexts)
- United States v. Rector, 111 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 1997) (entrapment by estoppel defense; rarity and requirements)
- United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (public trust as basis for 3B1.3 enhancement)
- United States v. Garner, 529 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1976) (jury instruction adequacy and discretion standards)
- United States v. Morris, 203 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2000) (statutory interpretation and vagueness review)