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Firearms; Harriet Bobo, Regional * [UNPUBLISHED]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-

Charles T. Sturdy, owner and operator of the Fenton Pawn Shop, appeals the

District 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 Firearms

(BATF) performed a compliance inspection at Sturdy&s pawn shop and found numerous

violations of federal firearms regulations, including failure to maintain accurate and

complete records. Compliance inspections in previous years had revealed similar

violations, and Sturdy had received notice of these violations. Following one

inspection in 1984, he also had received an admonitory letter, which described the

violations and noted that the BATF had considered revoking his license, but had

decided to give him an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to conduct business in

accordance with applicable law and regulations. In 1989, at the request of the BATF,

Sturdy attended an admonitory conference at which BATF inspectors reviewed the

violations with Sturdy and stressed that subsequent violations would result in

revocation of his license. Despite these warnings, Sturdy repeatedly failed to adhere

to the record-keeping requirements. Following the 1993 inspection, the BATF sent

notice to Sturdy that his license was being revoked.

After the BATF issued its final notice of revocation, Sturdy petitioned the

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 and admonitions from the BATF concerning

problems with his record keeping”; that Sturdy&s extensive experience as a firearms

dealer and his own testimony demonstrated he was well aware of record-keeping

requirements under federal law; and that his violations were thus willful.
-3-

On appeal, Sturdy argues the District Court erred in finding that he willfully

violated the record-keeping requirements for federal firearms licensure, and in

determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Sturdy&s argument rests

largely upon the legal definition of “willful,” and his contention that the violations--

which he admits occurred--did not constitute “an intentional violation of a known legal

duty.” He further asserts that, in determining willfulness, the District Court should

have considered his efforts to correct the errors and his alleged attention deficit

disorder. Finally, Sturdy contends he did not receive a full and fair hearing in the

District Court, because the Court quashed his subpoena for the BATF&s inspection

reports of three other firearms dealers.

A District Court may grant summary judgment when reviewing a firearms-license

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 factual

evidence showing willful violation of record-keeping regulations), cert. denied, 455

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 entitled to revoke Sturdy&s firearms license for willful violation

of the federal firearms regulations. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(e) (1994). To show a willful

violation, the BATF had to prove Sturdy knew of the legal record-keeping requirements

and “purposefully disregarded” or was “indifferent to” them. See Lewin v. Blumenthal,

590 F.2d 268, 269 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (citing Shyda v. Director, Bureau of

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, Inc. v. City of Little

Canada, 71 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), we agree with the

District Court that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that summary judgment

was appropriate, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Given the uncontroverted evidence

demonstrating Sturdy&s awareness of the legal record-keeping requirements and his

repeated failure to follow them, we conclude substantial evidence shows Sturdy&s

violations were willful. We further agree with the District Court that Sturdy&s after-thefact efforts to correct the specific violations pointed out to him are irrelevant to the

issue of willfulness at the time the errors occurred. See Cucchiara, 652 F.2d at 30.

After carefully 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.