2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-24-2010

USA v. Dwayne Bates

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1258

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Dwayne Bates" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 199.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/199
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 10-1258

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DWAYNE BATES,

Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D. C. No. 04-08-cr-245)

District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 4, 2010

 

Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 24, 2010)

O P I N I O N

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Dwayne Bates appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and receiving and possessing an unregistered 

firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He contends that the evidence was 
2

insufficient to support his conviction for these offenses.1 We have appellate jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I. Background

Based on the evidence presented at Bates‟s bench trial, a reasonable trier of fact 

could have found the following. On January 19, 2006, Harry William Day, a confidential 

informant for the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), informed his PSP contact, state 

trooper Hutson, that Bates was interested in selling Day a sawed-off shotgun. Day had 

been an informant for the PSP since 2005 and had received payments totaling 

approximately $4,050 from the PSP as compensation for participating in controlled buys 

of illegal drugs, usually in installments of $50 or $100 at a time. Day had encountered 

Bates on several occasions at an apartment in a duplex in Williamsport, owned by Day 

and leased to an associate of Bates, known to Day only as “Slim.” Although the 

apartment had been leased to Slim, Bates was a tenant at the apartment and used it to sell 

narcotics. 

On January 19, Day had come to the apartment to fix the water heater and, en 

route to the basement where the water heater was located, encountered Bates holding a 

sawed-off shotgun and talking with another person. After fixing the water heater, Day 

came back upstairs and asked Bates if the shotgun was for sale. Bates responded that it 

was and gave Day a price. Day then called Trooper Hutson and told him that he had 

spoken with Bates and that Bates was willing to sell him a sawed-off shotgun

The following day, Hutson and another trooper picked up Day in their squad car 

 

1Bates does not appeal his sentence.
3

and drove to a store near the apartment. Hutson searched Day and then provided him 

with $100 in marked bills to purchase the shotgun. Day did not wear a transmitter or 

recording device. Day then went to the apartment, observed by Hutson and another 

police officer. Bates let Day in to the apartment, Day gave Bates the $100 in marked 

bills, and Bates went upstairs and returned with the sawed-off shotgun. Bates held the 

gun around the trigger area before handing it to Day, who took it by the butt, put it under 

his coat, and left. Day then walked backed to Hutson‟s car and gave him the gun. 

Examination of the shotgun revealed that its serial number had been scratched but 

was still visible. Further examination showed that the weapon was operable, i.e., it could 

be fired with appropriate ammunition. The butt stock had been sawed off and the end of 

the barrel had been cut off, probably with a pipe-cutter. These modifications were 

obvious because there were burrs in the metal on the tip of the barrel, the butt stock was 

missing a recoil pad, and the nut and bolt connecting the butt to the gun were exposed. 

The barrel of the shotgun was 17 and 7/8 inches long, and the shotgun‟s overall length 

was 25 and 1/16 inches.2 

II. Procedural History

Bates was later arrested and charged in a three-count indictment with (1) 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (2) 

altering or obscuring the serial number of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), 

 

2

Shotguns with a total length of less than 26 inches or a barrel of less than 18 

inches in length are defined as “firearms” for purposes of federal gun laws, see 26 U.S.C. 

§ 5845(a), and must be registered, see id. § 5841. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) makes it a crime 

to possess or receive an unregistered firearm.
4

and (3) possessing an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Bates 

pleaded not guilty, waived his right to a jury trial, and the District Court held a two-day 

bench trial. The government presented the testimony of Day, Hutson, and three expert 

witnesses, who opined that the shotgun had been manufactured outside of Pennsylvania

and that it had been modified to shorten its barrel and butt-stock. 

Bates did not present any evidence at the trial. Only Day‟s testimony placed Bates 

at the apartment with the shotgun. The marked bills provided to Day, which he used to 

purchase the shotgun, were never recovered. Hutson testified that no effort was made to 

obtain fingerprints from the shotgun, because in his experience, it was rare that prints 

taken from a gun could be identified.

The District Court found Bates guilty on counts one and three. The court 

acknowledged that Day‟s testimony was critical, but found Day credible, notwithstanding 

the arguments against his credibility. Bates was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment 

followed by a three-year term of supervised release. He appealed. 

III. Discussion

In reviewing a criminal conviction after a bench trial “we must determine whether 

there is substantial supportive evidence for the district court‟s findings on the ultimate 

factual question of guilt.” United States v. Gillen, 599 F.2d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 1979) 

(citing United States v. Delerme, 457 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1972)). Several principles 

guide our review: (1) the trial judge‟s determination must be based on evidence “which a 

reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion,” (2) the practical effect of this rule 

is that we view “the record in the light most favorable to the government,” and (3) 
5

“where the evidence consists largely of oral testimony contradictory in nature, „due 

regard [should] be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the 

witnesses.‟” Delerme, 457 F.2d at 160. Bates‟s contentions on appeal boil down to two 

arguments: (1) Day‟s testimony alone was insufficient to support Bates‟s convictions, and

(2) there was insufficient evidence that Bates knowingly possessed a “firearm” as defined 

in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). We address each contention in turn.

A. Sufficiency of Day’s Testimony

Bates contends that Day‟s testimony is insufficient to establish that he possessed 

the sawed-off shotgun – a required element of both his offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); 

26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). We disagree.

We defer to the District Court‟s superior opportunity to assess Day‟s credibility. 

See Delerme, 457 F.2d at 160. We therefore consider only whether Day‟s testimony, if 

credited, provides substantial evidence of each element of the offense charged. See 

United States v. Kole, 164 F.3d 164, 177 (3d Cir. 1998). Day testified that he saw Bates 

holding the shotgun on two occasions, that Bates was willing to sell it to him, and that 

Bates did sell him the shotgun the following day. This testimony, if credited, provided 

substantial evidence that Bates possessed the shotgun. See United States v. Brown, 3 

F.3d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1993). 

B. Evidence of Knowledge

Bates also contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew 

that the shotgun had the characteristics making its possession illegal. To establish a 

violation of § 5861(d), the government did not have to show Bates “knew that his 
6

possession was unlawful, or that the firearm was unregistered.” Rogers v. United States, 

522 U.S. 252, 255 (1998). The government was required to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Bates “knew of the features that made what he was making, possessing, or 

transferring, a „firearm,‟” United States v. Hull, 456 F.3d 133, 143 (3d Cir. 2006) 

(emphasis in original) (citing Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994)), and 

more specifically, that Bates knew that the firearm‟s total length was less than 26 inches 

or its barrel length was less than 18 inches, see 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(1)-(2). Under the 

willful blindness doctrine, a defendant has knowledge of a fact if he is “aware of a high 

probability” of the fact and “consciously and deliberately tried to avoid learning about 

this fact.” United States v. Stadtmauer, 620 F.3d 238, 257 (3d Cir. 2010).

The evidence presented by the government showed that the shotgun‟s total length 

was 25 and 1/16ths of an inch. It was obvious from the condition of the muzzle and butt 

stock that they had been cut off, and the serial number had been scratched. Day testified 

that Bates had been holding the shotgun and the District Court could reasonably infer 

from this that Bates was aware of these features of the gun. Viewing this evidence in the 

light most favorable to the government, substantial evidence supports the District Court‟s 

conclusion that Bates knew or ignored a high probability that the shotgun was less than 

26 inches long.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court‟s judgment of commitment.