N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. IDAN C . GREENB ER G , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10351

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-01047-R OS-6
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 9, 2014 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : WALLAC E, SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Idan Gre e nbe rg c ha lle nge s his c onvic t ion for c onspira c y to de fraud the gove rnm e nt unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 ba se d on a n a lle g e d Brady

viola tion a n d the suffic i e nc y

of e vide nc e . He a lso c ha lle nge s his non-c onspira c y c ha rge s for suffic i e nc y

of e vide nc e and fa ilure to give a jury instruc tion re ga

rding the e le m e nts 

# FIL ED JAN 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.of an offe nse . B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts a

n d proc e dura l history of this c a se , we re p e at only those fa c ts ne c e s sa

ry to re solve the issue s ra ise d on a

ppe a l. W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and for re se nte nc ing. I. B rady

V iolation In orde r to e sta

blish a viola tion unde r Brady , “ a

de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t: (1) the e vide nc e at issueis fa vora ble to the a c c use d, e i the r be c a use it is e xc ulpa

tory or be c a use it is im

p e a c h i ng; (2) thee vide nc e wa s suppre sse d by the gove rnm e nt, re ga rdle s s of whe the r the suppre ssion wa s willful or inadve rte nt; a n d (3) the
e vide nc e is m ate ria l to theguilt or innoc e nc e of the de fe nda nt.” Unite d State

s v . Se daghaty , 728 F.3d 885, 899 (9th C ir. 2013) (c iting Brady v . Mary l and, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)). In order for the e vide nc e to be m ate ria l, the re m ust be “ a re a s ona ble proba bility tha t, ha d the e vide nc e be e n disc l ose d to thede fe nse , the
re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Unite d State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). Gre e nbe rg argue s tha

t the gove rnm e nt suppre sse d inform at ion re lating to the B ure a u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s , a nd Explosive s (ATF) having ina c c ura c ie s in its da t a ba se . Howe ve r, whe the r the fra udule nt form s we re subm i tte d to a n a c c urate data

ba se is not m ate ria l to Gre e nbe rg’ s guilt or innoc e nc e . Ac c ordingly ,

2the re is not a re a sona b l e proba bility tha t this information would ha ve a ffe c t e d the
re sult of theproc e e ding, a nd Gre e nbe rg’ s Brady

argum e nt fa i ls. II. Conspir ac y The e le m e nts of a

c onspira c y

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 a

re “ (1) [de fe nda

nt]
e nte re d into a

n a gre e m e nt (2) to obstruc t a la wful func tion of thegove rnm e nt (3) by de c e itful or dishone st m e ans a n d (4) at le a st one ove rt a c t in furthe ra nc e of the
c onspira c y .” Unite d State s v . C aldw e ll , 989 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th C ir. 1993). The re is a m ple e vide nc e tha

t Gre e n be rg and his c o-c onspira

tors a gre e d to subm it, a nd did subm

it, fra udule nt m a c hine gun re gistra tion a nd tra n sfe r form s to the A TF, the re by

obstruc ting theATF’ s la

wful gove rnm e nt func tion of re gula ting the t ran sfe r of fire a

rm s. The re fore , Gre e n

be rg wa s c orre c tly

found guilty

of a
c onspira c y

to de fraud the gove rnm e nt. III. Non-Conspir ac y Char ge s Gre e nbe rg a lso c ha lle nge s c ounts 74, 81, a n d 89, whic h a

re non-c onspira c y c ounts tha

t he did (1) knowingly

posse ss a nd tra nsfe r a m a c h ine gun m a de a fte r M ay 16, 1986; (2) knowingly

re c e ive and posse ss a

m a c hine gun tha

t wa s not transfe rre d in a c c orda

nc e with thela

w; a nd (3) knowingly

re c e ive and posse ss a m a c hine gun m a de in viola tion of thela

w.

3Gre e nbe rg doe s not c ha lle nge the fa c t tha t he posse sse d the m a c hine gun a t issue or tha

t he a ide d a

nd a b e tte d in its tra

n sfe r; he only

c ha l le nge s whe t

he r he

“ knowingly ” did the se things in viola t ion of thela

w. Howe ve r e ve n a s sum ing the gove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to proveknowle dge of the la w, the re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to c onc lude be y ond a re a sona b le doubt tha

t Gre e nbe rg kne wtha

t the
m a c hine gun he posse sse d wa s m a de a fte r M ay 16, 1986, tha

t Gre e n be rg kne w the
m a c hine gun wa s not tra

nsfe rre d in a c c orda

n c e with thela

w, a nd tha t Gre e nbe rg kne w the m a c hine gun wa s m a d e in viola tion of thela

w. Thus, a

re a s ona b le trie r of fa c t c o uld ha

ve found thee sse ntia l e le m e nts of thenon-c onspira c y c ha rge s be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt. IV . Jur y Instr uc tions Fina lly , Gre e nbe rg argue s tha t the distric t c ourt om itte d a n e sse ntia l pa

rt of the j ury instruc tions for c ount 74, a viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 922(o), unla wful transfe r or posse ssion of a m a c hine gun. Gre e nbe rg c onte nds tha t the instruc tions should ha ve indic ate d tha

t the sta tute doe s not a

pply if the posse ssion wa s la

wful. W e hav e a lre a dy

he ld tha t this instruction for la

wful posse ssion is a

n a ffirm ative de fe nse . Unite d State

s v . Grav e nme ir , 121 F.3d 526, 528-29 (9th C ir. 1997) (lawful posse ssion e sta

blishe s a n a ffirm ative de fe nse to the de fine d offe nse ). B e c a use the a ffirm ative de fe nse wa s not ra ise d at tria l, it wa s wa ive d by 4Gre e nbe rg, a nd we ne e d not c onside r whe the r the instruc tion should ha ve be e n inc l ude d in thejury

instruc tions. Se e Unite d State s v . Lo , 231 F.3d 471, 480-81 (9th C ir. 2000). V . Se nte nc ing G uide line E nhanc e m e nt The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t Gre e nbe rg’ s se nte nc ing ra nge wa s inc re a se d by four le ve l s for tra ffic king in fire arm s unde r U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) without the prope r supporting fac ts re q u ire d for suc h a

n e nha nc e m e nt. The re fore , we va c ate
and re m and to thedistric t c ourt for re se nte nc i ng. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, V ACAT E D in pa

rt, a nd RE M ANDE D for re se nte nc i ng.

5