# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 14 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Gab rie l Laz aro Garci a-Her na nd ez, al so kn own as Ga br ie l L. Garci a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 10 , 20 15
Fil ed : Oct ob er 1 6, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Gab rie l Lazar o Garci a-Her na nd ez, a c o n v ic te d fel on , of

po ss es si ng at le as t on e fir earm or am m un it io n, an d a fir earm wit h an ob li te rat ed se ria l

n u m be r, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), 92 4( e) an d §§ 92 2 ( k )

, 92 4( a)(1 )(B)

. He ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns an d th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.Dur in g a se arch

, Garci a-Her na nd ez to ld th e ag en ts th ey wou ld fin d fiv e

fir earm s at hi s ap art m en t— a .38

, .45

, .22

, an d two rif le s. Sear ch in g hi s on e-b ed ro om

ap art m en t, th e ag en ts fo un d t w o fir earm s— a .38 an d a .22 rif le —an d am

m un it io n.
The .22 was in th e be dr oo m cl os et wit h hi s cl ot he s, sh oe s, an d ot he r pe rs on al

be lo ng in gs

. The .22 ’s se ria l nu m be r was vi si bl y sc rat ch ed o u t a n d u nr ead ab le

. Sev eral ro un ds o f .22 am m un it io n were in a dr es se r be si de th e be d. Als o in th e
cl os et were ot he r am m

un it io n of va rio us types an d c al ib ers . In t he di ni ng area was
a b ack pa ck

wit h t hr ee m or e fi rear m s.

Befo re tri al

, Garci a-Her na nd ez st ip ul at ed to a pr ev io us fel on y co nv ic ti on th at

pr oh ib it ed hi m fro m po ss es si ng a fir earm or am m un it io n. At tri al

, he di d no t ob ject

to th e jury in st ru ct io ns

. The jury co nv ic te d o n bo th co un ts

. Garci a-Her na nd ez

ap pe al s.

I.

Garci a-Her na nd ez clai m s th at th e jury sh ou ld ha ve be en in st ru ct ed to fin d he

kn ew th e fi rear m

an d a m m un it io n wer e in or a ffec ti ng in te rs ta te co m m erce

.

Bec au se he di d no t t im el y ob ject, t he jury in st ru ct io ns are rev ie wed fo r pl ai n

e r r o r

. U n i te d St at es v. Poi tr a , 64 8 F.3 d 88 4, 88 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ W e typic al ly

rev ie w a ch al le ng e to jury in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. W he re a pa rty fai ls

to ti m el y ob

ject to an in st ru ct io n at tri al

, ho wev er, we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r.”).

Thi s cou rt has th e di sc ret io n to rev ers e if th e de fen da nt sh ows “ (1 ) an erro r, (2 ) th at

was ‘pla in ,’ (3 ) ‘affect s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s,’ an d (4 ) ‘the erro r s e r i ou sl y affe ct s th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y or p u b l i c rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Unit ed St at es v.

Fa st Ho rs e , 74 7 F.3 d 10 40

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), q u o t i n g U n it ed St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 5- 36 (1 99 3)

. “ A jury in st ru ct io n is pl ai nl y erro ne ou s if it m is st at es

th e la w.” Id

.

-2

-Garci a-Her na nd ez’s clai m res ts on hi s read in g of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d

92 4( a)(2 ).

(g ) It sh al l b e u nl awfu l fo r an y pe rs on

— (1 ) who ha s be en co nv ic te d in an y co ur t of

, a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by
im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear;

. . . to

. . . po ss es s in or affe ct in g co m m erce , an y fir earm or am m un it io n

. . .

18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 )

. The el em en ts of th is of fen se are: “ (1 ) pr ev io us co nv ic ti on of

a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of imp ris on m en t ex ceed in g on e y ear, (2 ) kn owi ng

po ss es si on of a fir earm , an d (3 ) th e fir earm was in or affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m m erce .”

Unit ed Sta te s v. M

on tg om er y , 70 1 F .3d 12 18 , 12 21 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Fo r th e th ird el em en t— th at a fir earm or am mu n i t i o n was in or affe ct in g

in te rs ta te co m

m er ce —G ar ci a-Her na nd ez be li ev es th at 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ) im po se s

a men s rea req ui rem en t. Sect io n 92 4( a)(2 ) sa y s, “ W ho ev er kn owi ng ly vi ol a t e s

su bs ect io n

. . . (g )

. . . of se ct io n 92 2 sh al l b e f i n e d a s pr ov id ed in th is ti tl e,

im pr is on ed no t m or e th an 10 y ears , or b ot h.”

Garci a-Her na nd ez in vo ke s th e Men te er c a s e. Unit ed St at es v. Men te er , 3 50

F.3 d 76 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ), va ca te d on ot he r gr ou nd s , 54 4 U.S. 91 6 (2 00 5)

, re in st at ed

, 40 8 F.3d 44 5 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ). The de fen da nt th ere a ss ert ed th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t

de ci si on s in St ap le s an d La mbe rt req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e bo th “ hi s kn owi ng

p o s se ss io n of a fir earm [an d] al so th at he kn ew it was il le ga l fo r hi m to po ss es s a

fir earm ” un de r § 92 2( g) (1 ). Id

. at 77 2, re fe re nc in g St

ap le s v. Unit

ed St at es , 51 1 U.S.

60 0 (1 99 4) an d Lam be rt v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 3 55 U.S. 22 5 (1 95 7)

. Garci a-Her na nd ez

fo cu se s on th e st at em en t th at “ un le ss th e te xt of th e st at ut e di ct at es a di ffer en t res ul t,

th e te rm ‘kno win gl y ’ m erel y req ui res pr oo f of kn owl ed ge of th e fact s th at co ns ti tu te

th e of fen se .” Id

. at 77 3, qu ot in g Br

ya n v. Unit

ed St at es , 52 4 U.S. 18 4, 19 3 (1 99 8)

.

-3

-Garci a-Her na nd ez ig no res Men te er ’s s ta te m en t th at “ st at ut es reg ul at in g p ot en ti al ly

ha rm fu l or in

juri ou s it em s typic al ly do no t req ui re th e men s r e a e l e m en t th at a

de fen da nt kn ow th e il le ga li ty of hi s co nd uc t.” Id

. at 77 2, ci ti ng St

ap le s , 51 1 U.S. at

60 7. Bec au se Men te er was a co nv ic te d fel on , “ al l th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e in th is

cas e was th at Men te er kn ew he po ss es se d a fir earm ; th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ha ve to

pr ov e Men te er kn ew it was il le ga l to do so .” Id

. Se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Hut ze ll

, 21 7 F.3 d 96 6, 96 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ha ve to pr ov e

th e d efen da nt “ kn ew th at it was i ll eg al for hi m to po ss es s a g un ”).

In Garci a-Her na nd ez’s cas e, th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e Garci a-Her na nd ez’s

fir earm or am m

un it io n ha d be en in or affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m m erce , no t th at he kn ew
it ha d be en in or affe ct in g in te rs ta t e c o mm e r c e. The m en s rea req ui rem en t in
§ 92 4( a)(2 ) do es no t ap pl y to th e in te rs ta te -co m m erce el em en t of § 92 2( g) (1 ). Unit ed

St at es v. Thom

ps on , 36 5 Fed

. App x. 42

, 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np u b l i s h e d) (ci ti ng

St ap le s an d Flo re s- Fig ue ro a , an d h ol di ng th at th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r “ pl ai nl y

or ot he rwis e, in in st ru ct in g t h e ju ry ” be cau se : “ The in te rs ta te co m m erce ne xu s in

se ct io n 92 2( g) m erel y pr ov id es th e ba si s fo r fed eral juri sd ic ti on , a nd kn owl ed ge of

th is el em en t is no t req ui red .”). Acco rd Unit ed St at es v. St on e , 70 6 F.3 d 11 45

, 11 47
(9 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (h ol di ng th e m en s rea req ui rem en t i n § 92 4( a)(2 ) di d no t ex te nd to
§ 92 2( g) (1 )’s in te rs ta te co m m erce el em en t an d th at “ th e in te rs ta te co m m erce el em en t

is pu rel y juri sd ic ti on al ”); Unit ed St at es v. Lang le

y , 62 F.3 d 60 2, 60 6 (4 th Ci r. 19 95 )
(en ba nc ) (an al y zi ng § 92 2( g) (1 )’s hi st or y , co nc lu di ng “ Co ng res s di d no t in te nd

. . .
to pl ace th e ad di ti on al ev id en ti ary bu rd en s on th e go ve rn m en t,” an d ex pl ai ni ng it was

“ hi gh ly un li ke ly t h a t Co ng res s in te nd ed to m ak e it ea si er fo r fel on s to av oi d

pr os ecu ti on by pe rm it ti ng th em to cl ai m th at th ey were un aware of th ei r fel on y st at us

an d/ or th e fir earm ’s i n t e r s t at e ne xu s.”) ; Unit ed St at es v. Ca pp s , 77 F.3 d 35 0, 35 3
(1 0t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ St ap le s an d X-Ci te men t Vid eo ha ve no t ch an ge d th e s c i e n t er

req ui rem en ts ap pl ic ab le t o a p ro se cu ti on un de r § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d ‘kno win gl y ’ st il l

m od ifi es on ly de fen da nt ’s po ss es si on of t h e f i r earm .”); Unit

ed St at es v. Ki rs h

, 54

F.3 d 10 62

, 10 71 (2 d Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ The req ui rem en t th at th e fir earm s ha ve an in te rs ta te

-4

-ne xu s is a juri sd ic ti on al req ui rem en t th at is ‘sati sf ie d m erel y up on a sh owi ng th at th e

po ss es se d fi rear m

ha s p rev io us ly . . . trav el le d i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce .’ ”).

Garci a-Her na nd ez al so in vo ke s E lon is v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 20 01 (2 01 5)

. The Elo ni s cas e ad dr es se d 18 U.S.C. § 87 5( c), whi ch “ do es no t sp eci fy an y req ui red

m en ta l st at e.” 13 5 S. Ct

. at 20 09

. Elo ni s rei te rat ed th at th e “ pr es um pt io n in fav or of

a sc ie nt er req ui rem en t sh ou ld ap pl y to ea ch of th e st at ut or y el em en ts th at cri m in al iz e

ot he rwis e in n oc en t co nd uc t.” Id

. at 20 11

, qu ot in g Unit

ed St at es v. X-Ci te m ent

V id eo , In c. , 51 3 U.S. 64

, 72 ( 1 9 9 4 ). The Co ur t he ld th at “ th e cru ci al el em en t

se pa r a t i n g le ga l in no cen ce fro m wro ng fu l co nd uc t” ne ces si ta te s a sc ie nt er

req ui rem en t. Id

. , qu o t i n g X-Ci te m ent V id eo , In c. , 51 3 U.S. at 72

. Fo r Garci aHern an de z, th e cru ci al el em en t se pa rat in g le ga l in no cen ce fro m wro ng fu l co nd uc t is

th at he was a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d am m un it io n— no t th at th e fir earm

an d a m m un it io n wer e in or a ffec ti ng in te rs ta te co m m erce

.

“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at si tu at io ns whe re th e te rm ‘kno win gl y ’

do es no t ap pl y to al l el em en ts th at fo ll ow it ‘ty pi cal ly in vo lv e sp eci al co nt ex ts or

. . . ba ck gr ou nd ci rcu m st an ces th at cal l fo r su ch a read in g.’” Unit ed St at es v. Br ug ui er , 73 5 F.3 d 75 4, 75 8 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 13 ) (en ba nc ), qu ot in g Fl or es -Fi gu er oa v. Unit

ed

St at es , 55 6 U.S. 64 6, 65 2 (2 00 9 ). In Flo re s- Fig ue ro a , th e Co ur t fo un d no sp eci al

co nt ex t o r ba ck gr ou nd cir cu m st an ces for 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ), whi ch pu ni sh es
who ev er “ kn owi ng ly tra ns fers

, po ss es se s, or us es , wit ho ut la wfu l au th or it y , a m ean s

of id en ti fic at io n of ano th er pers on .” Fl or es -Fi gu er oa , 55 6 U.S. at 64 8. The Co ur t

co nc lu de d th at th e go ve rn m en t m us t “ sh ow th at th e de fen da nt kn ew th at th e ‘m ean s

o f id en ti fic at io n’ he or sh e un la wfu ll y tra ns ferr ed

, po ss es se d, or us ed

, in fa c t

, be lo ng ed to ‘ano th er pe rs on .’ ” Id

. at 64 7. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ It m ak es li tt le se ns e

to read [§ 10 28 A( a ) ( 1) ]’ s la ng ua ge as he av il y pe na li zi ng a pe rs on who ‘tran sf ers ,
po ss es se s, or use s, with ou t lawfu l aut ho rit y ’ a so meth in g , bu t do es no t kn ow, at th e

ve ry le as t, th at th e ‘som et hi ng ’

. . . is a ‘m ean s of id en ti fic at io n.’” Id

. at 65 0. “ [T]he

-5

-in qu iry in to a se nt en ce’s m ean in g is a co nt ex tu al on e.

. . . No sp eci al co nt ex t is

pr es en t h ere.” Id

. at 65 2.

In Flo re s- Fig ue ro a , “ Co ng res s us ed th e wor d ‘kno win gl y ’ fo ll owe d by a li st

of of fen se el em en ts .” Id

. at 65 7. Sect io n 92 2( g) (1 ) is di ffer e n t

. Th e “kno win gl y ”

req ui reme n t i s in a se pa rat e se ct io n, § 92 4( a)(2 ). Req ui rin g a m en s rea fo r al l

el em en ts in § 92 2( g) (1 ) is le ss ev id en t th an req ui rin g a m en s rea fo r t h e li st of

el em en ts in § 1 0 2 8 A ( a ) ( 1)

. Se e St on e , 70 6 F.3 d at 11 47 (h ol di ng th at “ Flo re sFig ue ro a d i d no t di st ur b th is co ur t’s ex is ti ng in te rp ret at io n of §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d

92 4( a)(2 )” an d th eref

or e th e m en s rea req ui rem en t di d no t ex te nd t o t h e in te rs ta te

co m m erce el em en t); Lang le

y , 62 F.3 d at 60 6 (d et ai li ng th e le gi sl a t i v e hi st or y of
§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d § 92 4( a)(2 ) an d co nc l u d i n g C o n g res s di d no t in te nd to ap pl y th e

m en s rea req ui rem en t to th e in te rs ta te co m m erce el e men t o f § 92 2( g) (1 )); Unit ed

St at es v. Pete rs , 36 4 Fed

. App x. 89 7, 89 8 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (“ Th e

de te rm in at io n th at th e ‘kno win gl y ’ req ui rem en t in Sect io n 92 4( a)(2 ) di d no t ext en d

to Sect io n 92 2( g) (1 ) was an al te rn at e ho ld in g [o f Ros e ], no t di ct um , an d th us is

bi nd in g pr eced en t.”)

, in te rp re ti ng Unit ed St at es v. Ro se , 58 7 F.3 d 69 5, 70 5- 06 (5 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). A sp eci al co nt ex t is pr es en t he re: th e in te rs ta te co mm e rce el em en t

pr ov id es fed eral juri sd ic ti on

. Se e Thom ps on , 36 5 Fed

. App x. at 43 (s ta ti ng th at th e

“ in te rs ta te co m

m erce ne xu s in se ct io n 92 2( g) m erel y pr ov id es t h e b a si s fo r fed eral
juri sd ic ti on , an d kn ow l ed ge of th is el em en t is no t req ui red .” (em ph as is ad de d) );

St on e , 70 6 F.3 d a t 1 1 4 7 (“ [T]he in te rs ta te co m m erce el em en t [o f § 92 2( g) (1 )] is

pu rel y juri sd ic ti on al ”).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err in no t in st ru ct in g th e jury to fin d Garci a- 1

Hern an de z kn ew th e fir earm an d am m un it io n were in o r a f

f e c ti ng in te rs ta te

co m m erce

.

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Unite d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nort h Dak ot a.

-6

-II.

Garci a-Her na nd ez as se rts th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce h e k ne w th e se ria l n um be r on th e .22 rif

le ha d b een ob li te rat ed

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, “ vi ewin g ev id en ce

in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s v e r d ic t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e

go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.”

Unit ed St at es v. Til lm an , 76 5 F.3 d 83 1, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). A co nv ic ti on is rev ers ed

“ on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu i l t y be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t.” Unit

ed St at es v. Sul li va n , 71 4 F.3 d 11 04

, 11 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ).

Garci a-Her n an de z rel ie s on Uni te d St at es v. Hai le

, 68 5 F.3 d 12 11 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 12 ). The go ve rn m en t th er e e s t a b l is he d “ th at [th e de fen da nt ] di sc us se d gu ns in

ge ne ral be fo re th e arre st an d th at ag en ts fo un d th e gu n in th e fla tb ed of hi s tru ck (o ut

of hi s reac h) aft er t he arre st .” 68 5 F .3d at 1 22 0- 21 . The Ele ve nt h C irc ui t h el d t ha t

th e ev id en ce was no t su ffi ci en t “ ev en to sh ow th at [th e de fen da nt ] po ss es se d th e gu n

fo r a pe rio d of ti m e du rin g whi ch an or di na ry m an wou ld ha ve di sc ov ered t h a t th e

se ria l n um

be r was ob li te rat ed .” Id

. at 1 22 0.

The ev id en ce he re is st ro ng er th an th e ev i d e n c e i n Hai le

. A reas on ab le jury

co ul d in fer th at Garci a-Her na nd ez kn ew th e fir earm ha d an ob li te rat ed se ria l nu m be r.

Fi rs t, th e se ria l nu m

be r was vi si bl

y sc rat ch ed ou t, as ap pa ren t in th e ph ot o ex hi bi t at

tri al

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Thor nt

on , 46 3 F.3 d 69 3, 69 9 (7 t h C ir. 20 06 ) (“ Afte r

co nc lu di ng th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e gu n, th e jury al so co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d

th at he kn ew th e gu n’s se ria l nu m be r ha d be en ob li te rat ed

, gi ve n th at on e ne ed on ly

lo ok at th e gu n to at ta in th at kn owl ed ge .”). Seco nd

, th e fir earm was fo un d in Garci aHern an de z’s be dr oo m cl os et wit h hi s cl ot he s an d sh oe s. Thi rd

, he to ld po li ce be fo re

th e se arch th at th ey wou ld fin d “ a .38

, a

. 4 5

, a .22

, an d th en two rif le s” at hi s

-7

-ap art m en t, de m on st rat in g kn owl ed ge of th e fir e a r ms he own ed

. A reas on ab le jury

co ul d i nf er t ha t Gar ci a-Her na nd ez k ne w of t he fir earm ’s ob li te rat ed ser ia l n um be r.

The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt Ga rci a-Her na nd ez’s co nv ic ti on

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-