Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13956/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13956-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James David Kircus
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13956

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00456-RDP-JHE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

JAMES DAVID KIRCUS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(July 22, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

James Kircus appeals his conviction for knowing possession of a destructive 

device, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Kircus contends the district court 

erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the Government 

failed to prove Kircus’s modified airbag cylinder was a “destructive device.” We 

affirm. 

A “destructive device” is statutorily defined as “any explosive, incendiary, 

or poison gas (A) bomb” but not including “any device which is neither designed 

nor redesigned for use as a weapon.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). This section requires

proof that the device was both (1) “an explosive” and (2) “designed as a weapon.” 

United States v. Hammond, 371 F.3d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 2004). In determining 

whether a device was designed as a weapon, “the critical inquiry is whether the 

device, as designed, has any value other than as a weapon.” Id. at 781. 

On appeal, Kircus does not argue the modified airbag cylinder was not an 

explosive. Rather, he contends the evidence does not support a finding that the

device was designed or redesigned as a weapon. We disagree. The Government’s 

experts testified the device as modified had no social, industrial, or commercial use

and was, in their opinion, designed to be an improvised explosive bomb. The 

Government’s experts also testified the device would fragment into pieces moving 

USCA11 Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

at a high enough rate of speed to seriously injure anyone in the vicinity of the blast. 

This testimony, along with other record evidence, provides a sufficient basis for 

concluding the device was designed as a weapon. See, e.g., United States v. 

Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1247 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining the Government’s 

expert testimony “established that [defendant’s] pipe bombs were designed as 

weapons” when the expert testified the pipe bombs “had no social or entertainment 

use, they propelled fragments, and the fragments were capable of causing severe 

injury to people in the vicinity”). Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying Kircus’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 3 of 3