Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05165/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Dean Snider
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenrh Circuit 

OCT 17 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-5165 

JAMES DEAN SNIDER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-048-02) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a 

codefendant in the knowing and unlawful transfer of an automatic 

firearm without obtaining an approved application form, in 

violation of 26 u.s.c. §§ 586l(e) and 5871, and 18 u.s.c. § 2. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5165 Document: 010110060407 Date Filed: 10/17/1990 Page: 1 
The sole issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence 

to sustain the jury's verdict. 

We conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient. 

Among other items, the following direct and circumstantial evidence was offered at trial. A government informant spoke to 

Mr. Holt, the codefendant, about an automatic weapon which 

Mr. Holt owned. Mr. Holt told the informant that he wanted to 

sell the gun because he needed money. He described the gun as the 

one involved in this charge. The informant arranged with the ATF 

agents to make an observed purchase of the gun. He arranged for 

the transfer to take place at a local motel in a room to be rented 

by the informant. When Mr. Holt came to the informant's room, he 

did not have the gun because the situation was too dangerous. Mr. 

Holt said he would have the gun delivered. 

They made new arrangements to have the gun placed in the 

informant's car, and after it was delivered, the informant was to 

get a telephone call confirming the delivery. The informant was 

told that the deliverer was less than one mile away. Mr. Holt 

made a telephone call to someone named Jack and then left the 

motel. Approximately fifteen minutes later, the informant 

received a telephone call and recognized the voice on the phone as 

the defendant. The caller identified as the defendant said he had 

put the gun behind a dumpster and warned the informant to be 

extremely careful. The informant then went to the apartment 

complex behind the motel and retrieved a cardboard box with a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5165 Document: 010110060407 Date Filed: 10/17/1990 Page: 2 
.. 

brand name "Greco" in which he found the automatic weapon wrapped 

in a mattress pad. 

In addition to this evidence, there was the testimony of 

Ms. Debra McElroy. She testified that she saw the defendant at 

her house wipe off a weapon that looked like an M-16 machine gun, 

wrap it in what she thought was a blanket, and put it in a box. 

She further testified that the defendant, on the date of the 

transaction, said he had to run an errand, put the box containing 

the gun in his truck, and left. When he returned he did not have 

the box with him. 

Another witness, Ms. Denise Dirricke, testified that at the 

same house she saw the defendant wrapping what looked like a rifle 

and putting it in a Greco-brand box. In response to her question, 

he told her he was packing merchandise. She heard him say that 

his mother's address was on the box and that he pulled the label 

off. She also saw him put that box in his truck and leave. When 

he returned, he told her that he had put something in a dumpster. 

On further inquiry, he told her that he was supposed to put it in 

someone's car but that he put it in a dumpster. The next day he 

told her that he knew it was a set-up deal, and he knew the government informant was going to burn him. He elaborated that he 

wasn't going to go down for it because his prints were off everything. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5165 Document: 010110060407 Date Filed: 10/17/1990 Page: 3 
.. 

While there was some evidence contesting or contradicting the 

evidence we have recited here, the resolution of that was for the 

jury. We find this and other evidence in the record more than 

sufficient to sustain the convict ion in this case. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5165 Document: 010110060407 Date Filed: 10/17/1990 Page: 4