Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03213/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03213-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Troy Olson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3213

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota. 

Michael Troy Olson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

A jury convicted Michael Troy Olson of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, and the district court1

 sentenced him to 275 months. Olson appeals, arguing

Appellate Case: 05-3213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036381
2

Since no sentencing arguments were ever developed in his brief, we do not

address his sentence. 

-2-

that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of an infirmity in the indictment and

complaining that he was not granted the benefit of the safety valve at sentencing.2

 

While executing a search warrant at Olson's premises, officers seized two long

rifles and a .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol. Olson admitted that he owned the long

rifles and that his fingerprints were on the handgun, which his wife had purchased.

He was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). 

Before trial Olson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging that it was

duplicitous because the possession of several firearms was charged in the same count.

The district court denied the motion and later instructed the jury that it could find the

possession of a single firearm sufficient to convict, but that "you must unanimously

agree upon which of the firearms the defendant possessed" or else find the defendant

not guilty. 

Olson appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He claims

that since the indictment was duplicitous, it is unclear which act of possession the

grand jury had agreed on. An indictment is duplicitous if it joins "two or more distinct

and separate offenses" in a single count. United States v. Moore, 184 F.3d 790, 793

(8th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). There was not a duplicitous indictment

here, however, because the possession or simultaneous receipt of multiple firearms

constitutes a single offense. See United States v. Kinsley, 518 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.

1975) (possession of four firearms was a single offense under an earlier felon in

possession statute), United States v. Powers, 572 F.2d 146 (8th Cir. 1978)

(simultaneous receipt of three firearms a single offense). Olson has not shown any

error in the indictment and even if there had been a flaw in the grand jury

Appellate Case: 05-3213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036381
-3-

proceedings, the petit jury's guilty verdict would have rendered it harmless. See

United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1011

(2003). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3213 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036381