United States v. William Wolf, 691 F. App'x 438

Defendant William Krisstofer Wolf was convicted by a jury of illegal possession of a machine gun (an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841 and 5871.
Wolf was sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment after a 21-month upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Pretrial, Wolf filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude certain statements; the district court dismissed the motion as untimely and announced its intent to admit the statements over Fed. R. Evid. 403 objections.
At trial Wolf argued entrapment and lack of requisite mens rea (claimed he did not know the weapon was fully automatic or had a shortened barrel); government relied on Wolf’s statements and other evidence to prove knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake.
The jury rejected entrapment and convicted; Wolf appealed, challenging admissibility of statements, First Amendment protection of speech, sufficiency on entrapment/predisposition, and the reasonableness of the upward variance sentence.

Issue	Wolf's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Timeliness and admission of pretrial motion/statements	District court abused discretion in dismissing untimely motion and admitting statements	Motion was untimely; court acted within discretion and statements admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403	Affirmed — dismissal and pretrial ruling not an abuse; Wolf preserved objections at trial by renewing them
Admissibility of speech under First Amendment	Statements were protected speech and should be suppressed	First Amendment does not bar evidentiary use of speech to prove elements, intent, or motive	Affirmed — speech admissible to prove state of mind and intent; not a First Amendment bar
Entrapment / predisposition	Entrapment: government induced purchase; Wolf lacked predisposition and required mens rea	Government showed Wolf was predisposed and not induced; statements and conduct probative of knowledge and intent	Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support jury finding of no entrapment and predisposition to commit the crime
Sentence upward variance under § 3553(a)	72-month sentence substantively unreasonable; court improperly relied on firearm features	District court properly varied (not departed) under § 3553(a); may consider firearm dangerousness and dual illegality	Affirmed — variance reasonable and not greater than necessary

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (pretrial rulings on admissibility are preliminary and district court has discretion)
Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341 (1963) (good-cause requirement and timeliness principles)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (First Amendment does not bar evidentiary use of speech to prove crime elements or motive)
United States v. Montoya-Gaxiola, 796 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2015) (government must prove defendant knew characteristics of firearm)
United States v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2016) (entrapment framework: predisposition or lack of inducement)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (distinguishing guideline "departure" from § 3553(a) variance)