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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JARED THOM AS ATC H LEY,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30002

D.C . No. 6:14-c r-00006-SEH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2017 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, FISHER , a

nd FRIEDLAND, C i rc u it Judge s. Ja re d Atc hle y

a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for viola ting 26 U.S.C . § 5861(d) a nd
c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss sta te m e nts he and his fa the r m a d e to polic e offic e rs a nd the suffic ie nc y

of the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e



# FIL ED MAR 13 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ga inst him . B e c a use the fa c t s a

re known to the

pa rtie s, we re pe at the m

only a s
ne c e ssa ry to e xpla in our de c ision. I Atc hle y argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a dm itting the sta te m e nts be c a use (1) the y

we re not re c o rde d, a s purporte dly re quire d unde r M onta

na la w,
and (2) the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to show tha t the sta te m e nts we re volunta

ry . B oth
argum e nts fa il. A First, the offic e rs did not viola te M onta na la w. The offic e rs we re not
re quire d to re c ord Atc hle y ’ s inte rvie w, be c a use it did not oc c ur in a “ pla c e of de te ntion.” Se e M ont. C ode Ann. §§ 46-4-407(1), 46-4-407(3), 46-4-408; se e also State v . Gre y , 907 P.2d 951, 956 (M ont. 1995) (“ [I] n the c onte xt of a

c ustodia l inte rrogation c o nduc te d at the station house

or unde r othe r similarly

c ontrolle d
c irc umstanc e

s , the fa ilure . . . to pre se rve som e ta n gible re c ord of [a

de ta ine e ’ s Miranda warnings] will bevie we d with distrust . . . .” (e m pha sis a dde d)). B Se c ond, the re l e va

nt c irc um sta

n c e s support the

c onc lusion tha

t Atc hle y ’ s sta te m e nts we re volunta

ry . For e xam

ple , the e vide nc e sugge sts tha t Atc hle y volunta rily a c c om pa nie d the offic e rs outsidethe ba r, tha t he wa s re a d his rights,
2that

the inte rvie w wa s c arrie d out in a non-thre ate ning m anne r, tha t the e ntire
e nc ounte r la ste d a

pproxim ate ly

15 m inute s, a

nd tha t Atc hle y wa s a n a dult with a high sc hool diploma

at the tim e . Se e

, e .g. , B row n v . Hore ll , 644 F.3d 969, 979 (9th C ir. 2011) (listing fa c tors re le va nt to e va luating volunta

rine ss of a

c onfe ssion). Atc hle y ha s offe re d no re a son to doubt the volunta rine ss of the inte ra c t ion othe r tha n his own spe c u l ation tha

t he m ay have be e n intoxic ate d at the tim e
— a notion
re je c te d by the te stim ony

of both offic e rs. The e vide nc e in the re c ord is suffic ie nt to show thevolunta

rine s s of Atc hle y ’ s sta

te m e nts by

a pre ponde ranc e of the
e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Bautista , 362 F.3d 584, 589 (9th C ir. 2004) (gove rnm e nt m

ust show volunta

rine ss by a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e ). II The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to show tha t Atc hle y
c onstruc tive l y

posse s se d the rifle a fte r it ha d be e n c ut short. Se e ge ne rally Unite d State s v . N ungaray , 697 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th C ir. 2012) (disc ussing c onstruc tive posse s sion). B oth Atc hle y a nd his fa the r a d m itte d tha t Atc h le y owne d the rifle ; Atc hle y a c c urate ly

de sc ribe d the re le va

nt c ha ra c te ristic s of the rifle , inc l uding tha t it ha d be e n c ut short; a

nd Offic e r Gle ic h te s tifie d tha t Atc hle y told him none of the othe r individuals in thec ar ha d a c c e ss to therifle . Vie we d in the light m ost favora ble to the prose c ution, this evide nc e is suffic ie nt for a rationa l trie r-of-fa c t to
3find be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t Atc hle y knowingly

posse sse d the a lte re d rifle
. Se e Unite d State

s v . N e v i ls , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th C i r. 2010) (e n ba nc ) (disc ussing sta

n da rd for re vie wing suffic ie nc y of the e vide n c e ). III The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D
.

4