Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02028/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Fred Birner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECK1<11, Clerk . -= ..... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MANUEL FRED BIRNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No . 92-2028 

(D. C. No. 91-JB-177) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Birner was convicted of two criminal charges: The first 

was possession of an unregistered sawed-off Remington shotgun in 

violation of 26 u.s.c. S 5681(d) which makes it a crime to possess 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-2028 Document: 010110287336 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 1
certain types of unregistered firearms; the second was possession 

of a sawed-off Stevens shotgun which had no serial number in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 586l(i). Mr. Birner raises a single 

issue on appeal by asserting the trial court should have 

instructed the jury they could not convict unless the prosecution 

proved Mr. Birner knew that possession of the weapon was illegal. 

We reject Mr. Birner's contention and affirm the convictions. 

The trial court instructed that the government had to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant knew he had a gun in 

his possession; (2) the weapon was made from a shotgun having an 

overall length of less than twenty-six inches or a barrel length 

of less than eighteen inches; (3) defendant knew the gun had been 

modified; (4) the gun was in operating condition; and (5) the 

Remington shotgun was not registered to defendant (under Count I) 

and the Stevens shotgun was not identified by a serial number 

(under Count II). 

Mr. Birner requested specific intent instructions, i.e., the 

United States had to prove Mr. Birner knew the shotgun had to be 

registered (Count I) and that Mr. Birner knew the Stevens shotgun 

had to bear a serial number (Count II). However, the trial court 

denied that request. 

United States v. Mittleider, 835 F.2d 769 (10th Cir. 1987), 

cert. denied, 485 U.S. 980 (1988), is dispositive. There, in 

discussing the same statute, we held the offenses were not 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2028 Document: 010110287336 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 2
specific intent crimes and the government was not required to 

prove that possession of the weapon was against the law. Id. at 

774; see also United States v. Freed, 401 U.S . 601, 607 (1971). 

Mr. Birner asks that we read the mens rea element into these 

offenses. This we are not free to do. Controlling Tenth Circuit 

authority exists. Mr. Birner asks us to adopt United States v. 

Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1989). The court in Anderson 

did not hold the government must prove defendant knew the firearm 

had to be registered; rather, it held the government must prove 

defendant knew the firearm had been modified, id. at 1253, which 

is precisely how the trial court instructed in this case. 

There was no error in the instructions. The judgment of the 

trial court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2028 Document: 010110287336 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 3