United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1786

___________ Charles Thomas Sturdy, doing * business as Fenton Pawn Shop, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary, Department * District Court for the of Treasury; John McGaw, Director, * Eastern District of Missouri. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & * Firearms; Harriet Bobo, Regional * [UNPUBLISHED] Director, Southwest Region, Bureau of * Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 1, 1997 Filed: October 6, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. -2- Cha rles T. Sturdy, owner and operator of the Fenton Pawn Shop, appeals th e D i strict Court & s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in Sturdy & s 1 action seeking review of

a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Treasury to revoke Sturdy & s federal license to sell firearms. We affirm.

In 1993, an inspector from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm s (BATF) performed a compliance inspection at Sturdy & s pawn shop and found numerous violat ions of federal firearms regulations, including failure to maintain accurate an d comp lete records. Compliance inspections in previous years had revealed similar violatio ns, and Sturdy had received notice of these violations. Following on e inspecti onin 1984, he also had received an admonitory letter, which described th e violati ons and noted that the BATF had considered revoking his license, but ha d decidedto give him an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to conduct business i n accordance with applicable law and regulations. In 1989, at the request of the BATF, Stu rdy attended an admonitory conference at which BATF inspectors reviewed th e violat ions with Sturdy and stressed that subsequent violations would result i n revocation of his license. Despite these warnings, Sturdy repeatedly failed to adhere to the record-keeping requirements. Following the 1993 inspection, the BATF sen t notice to Sturdy that his license was being revoked.
After the BATF issued its final notice of revocation, Sturdy petitioned th e District Court for judicial review. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court found that the evidence of Sturdy & s “numerous violations [was] clear and undisputed”; that he also had received “numerous warnings a nd admonitions from the BATF concerning proble ms with his record keeping”; that Sturdy & s extensive experience as a firearm s dealer a nd his own testimony demonstrated he was well aware of record-keepin g requirements under federal law; and that his violations were thus willful.-3-

On appe al, Sturdy argues the District Court erred in finding that he willfull y violated the record-keeping requirements for federal firearms licensure, and i n det ermining that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Sturdy & s argument rest s large lyupon the legal definition of “willful,” and his contention that the violations-

- which he admits occurred--did not constitute “a n intentional violation of a known legal duty.” He further asserts that, in determining willfulness, the District Court shoul d have co nsidered his efforts to correct the errors and his alleged attention defici t diso rder. Finally, Sturdy contends he did not receive a full and fair hearing in th e DistrictC ourt, because the Court quashed his subpoena for the BATF & s inspectio n reports of three other firearms dealers. A District Court may grant summary judgment when reviewing a firearms-licens e revocation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3) (1994), provided no issues of material fact
are in dispute. Cf. Cucchiara v. Secretary of Treasury , 652 F.2d 28, 29-30 (9th Cir

. 1981) ( affirming grant of summary judgment where licensee did not dispute factua l evi dence showing willful violation of record-keeping regulations), cert. denied , 45 5 U.S. 948 (1982); Fin & Feather Sport Shop, Inc. v. United States Treasury Dep & t , 481 F. Supp. 800, 807 (D. Neb. 1979) (noting summary judgment is available under section 923 (f)(3)).
The BATF was enti tled to revoke Sturdy & s firearms license for willful violation of the federal firearms regulati ons. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(e) (1994). To show a willful violation, the BATF had to prove Sturdy knew of the legal record-keepi ng requirements and “purposefully disregarded” or was “indifferent to” them. See Lewin v. Blumenthal , 590 F.2d 2 68, 269 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (citing Shyda v. Director, Bureau o f Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms , 448 F. Supp. 409, 415 (M.D. Pa. 1977) (discussing definition of “willful” in context of license revocation)). Thus, the BATF did not have to adduce evidence of “bad purpose.” See id.-4-

After de novo review of the record, see Movers Warehouse, In c. v. City of Little Canada , 71 F. 3d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), we agree with th e District Court that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that summary judgment
wa s appropriate, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Given the uncontroverted evidenc e demonstrating Sturdy & s awareness of the legal record-keeping requirements and hi s repea tedfailure to follow them, we conclude substantial evidence shows Sturdy & s violations were willful. We further agree with the District Court th at Sturdy & s after-thefact efforts to correct the specific violations pointed out to him are irrelevant to th e issue of willfulness at the time the errors occurred. See Cucchiara , 652 F.2d at 30.
After caref

ully reviewing Sturdy & s remaining points on appeal, we find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.