* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 24 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. WILLIAM RENA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-6177 (Western District of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CR-01-192-L)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , MURPHY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is court has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The c ase is therefore submitted without oral argument.2 -2- Defendant William Rena Johnson (“Johnson”) was char ged with knowingly making a false statement or representation on a fed eral firearms form in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). After a two-day jury trial, Johnson was convicted. Johnson appeals his conviction arguing that there w as insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. I. Background On December 12, 1995, Johnson was convicted of two felony offenses in Cook County, Illinois for which he served over one year of imprisonment. On March 4, 2000, Johnson attempted to purchase a hand gun at Superpawn in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Jimmy Gutierrez (“Gutierr ez”), an employee of Superpawn, told Johnson that he needed to provide aform of identification and complete an Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) Form 4473 prior to obtaining a handgun. Gutierrez provided Johnson wi th a 4473 form. Question 9c on the 4473 form asks the following: “Have you beenconvicted in any court of a crime for which the judge could have imprisoned youfor more than one year, even if the judge actually gave you a shorter sente nce?” Johnson answered “no” to this question. Johnson then signed the 4473 form to certify that his answers were true and that he understood that making a fals e statement on the form was a felony.3 -3- After Johnson completed the 4473 form, Gutierrez ca lled the National Instant Check System (“NICS”) so that a background check could be performed on Johnson. The NICS indicated that the backgroundcheck was “delayed.” Gutierrez informed Johnson of the delay. Johnson r eturned to Superpawn a few days later. Gutierrez informed Johnson that the NI CS denied his 4473 form. Johnson then asked Gutierrez whether Gutierrez coul d personally sell him a gun. Gutierrez told Johnson that he would not sell him agun. In response, Johnson told Gutierrez that he needed a gun and he would fi nd one elsewhere. After the denial by the NICS, an ATF agent obtained the 4473 form Johnson completed at Superpawn and discovered that Johnson had indicated that he had never been convicted of a crime for which he could have been imprisoned for more than one year. The ATF agent questioned J ohnson regarding his response on the 4473 form. Johnson told the ATF ag ent that he thought after seven to ten years his convictions would no longer be reflected on his record. II. Discussion In evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court will reverse the jury’s verdict “only if no rational trier of fact c ould have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Haslip , 160 F.3d 649, 652 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations and citation omitted). This court reviews the record de novo , viewing the evidence and any reasonable inference s4 -4- drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government. Id . at 652-53. This court, however, will “neither weigh conflictin g evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses.” Id . (quotations and citation omitted). Further, ques tions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo

. United States v. Acosta-Olivas , 71 F.3d 375, 377 (10th Cir. 1995). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), it is unlawfu l for a person to “knowingly make[] any false statement or representation with respect to the information required . . . in applying for any lice nse . . . under the provisions of this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Johnson argues that to uphold his conviction under § 924(a)(1)(A), there must be suff icient proof that Johnson knowingly provided false information on the 4473 fo rm with the intent to deceive

. To support his argument, Johnson cites United States v. Hernandez , 913 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir. 1990). In Hernandez , this court examined 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm . . . from a licensed . . . dealer . . . knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement . . . intended or likely to deceive such . . . dealer . . . .” Hernandez , 913 F.2d at 1513 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)). Unlike the provision at issue in Hernandez , however, the government need only prove that the defendantknowinglyprovided false information on the 4473 form to convict the defendant under § 924(a)(1 )(A). See Bryan v. United5 -5- States , 524 U.S. 184, 188 (1998) (noting that the intent required under § 924(a)(1)(A) is “knowingly”). The government presented evidence that Johnson answ ered “no” to question 9c on the 4473 form. Further, the government prese nted evidence that Johnson had been convicted in 1995 of two felonies for whic h he served over one year of imprisonment. The government also presented eviden ce that Johnson informed the ATF agent who questioned him regarding the 4473 form that he believed his two felony convictions would not be reflected on hi s criminal record after seven to ten years. Johnson, however, had been convictedof two felonies only five years prior to his completion of the 4473 form. Fi nally, the government presented evidence that after his 4473 form for the handgun h ad been denied, Johnson asked Gutierrez if he would personally sell him a handgun . Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conc lude that a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Johns on knowingly made a false statement in connection with his application for a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).2 Appellee’s motion to supplement the record on app eal with exhibits

admitted at trial but not included in the district court’s record is granted

. 6 -6- III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, this court affirms Johnson’s conviction. 2
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge