02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7



### FACSIMILE MESSAGE FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATlON OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL ANM-7 

### 1601 LlND AVENUE S.W. RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057· PAGE 01/47



### The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential infonn.at\on and is intended only for the use ofthe individual named onthis cover sheet. 

### Ifthe reader ofthis message is not the inte.nded recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copy ofthis facsimile is 

### strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this facsimile in error, please immediatelynotifY us 

### bytelephone at 

### 425-227-2007.


## DATE: TO: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: RE: February 14, 2012 Docket Clerk AGC-430 

## 202-493-5142**FAA-2011~1286** 

### FAA Case 

## No. 2010NM720001 

## J. Moesser 

## NO. PAGES: FROM: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.:· EMAIL:

Re: Motion for Reconsideration and 2"' Motion for Decision 

## including cover Jeffrey Harper 425-227-1007 425-227-216102/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 ll 12 13 J.4 15 16 17 18 1S 20 21 22 23**2~** 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 JEFFREYM. HARPER FAAOFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEl.. 1601 LJNJ.J AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON,\VASHINGTON 98057 TEIJ'WHONE: (425) 227-2161 FACSIMILE: (425) 227"1007 

### ·UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of: Joseph Moesser

To: Judge Goodwin: 

### FAACaseNo. 2010NM720001 DMS No. FAA-2011-1286 

### MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

### SECOND MOTION FOR.DECISION Judge Richard C. Goodwin



### MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SECOND MOTION FOR DECISION In accordance w:ith 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (C.F.R.) Sections 13 .218(a) and (f)(5) (Rule l3.2.18(a) and (f)(5)), the Administrator (Complainant) brings this Motion for Reconsideration and Second MGtion for Decision. Respondent admits the factual matters alleged 

### in the Complaint, bothinhis Answer and inhis Response 

### to the Order to 

### Show Cause. There being no issue ofmaterial fact in dispute, the Complainant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.


### Facts InApril, 

### 2011, Respondent pled guilty 

### to violating 

### 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1036(a)(4). Exhibit 1. 

### An element ofthat offense, as charged, was that he "purposefully conceal[ed] in checked baggage

... dangerous items he knew to beprohibited and which he expected to accompany him on the aircraft." Exhibit 2.

Comptainanfs Motion fur Reco\lsidemtion at'ld Second Motion for Decision .Tr.:F:FRr;:Y M,**HMP~** FAAATTORNEY Joseph Moe"er**~** FAA-2011·1286 TEL; (425) 227-2161; !'AX; (4·25) 227-1007 201 ONM72000I Page 1 oflS02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/47

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

### n 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3). 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 !0 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 43 49 50 51 52 53 The Complaint inthis case was filed on December 2, 2011 and was receivedby Respondent on December 5, 2011. Exhibit 3. The Complaint putRespondent on notice thathe must file an Answerwithinthirty (30) days ofservice, absentgood cause. On January 6, 2012, the Answer 

### was due. OnJanuary 9, 2012, this Courtentered a Procedural Order which reiterated the requirement to file anAnswer within thirty (30) days ofservice ofthe complaint, and further statedthat a party r<::questing ''anextension oftime must file a written motion notless tl1an seven (7) days before tile .document is due, absent good cause shown." Complainant filed aMotionfor Decision (Motion) on January 10,2012 onthe grounds Respondent failed to file anAnswerwithin the thirty (30) days provided by 14 C.P.R.§ 13.209(a) plus the five (5) additional days allowed by 14 C.F.R 

### § 13.21l(e) for service by mail. The Motion was served on Respondent's counsel by facsimile andmail. On 

### .Tanuary 12, 2012, Respondent filed an. Answer. The Answer did not seek an extension of time to file. TheAnswer did not provide any cause for the late filing. On January 31,2012,this Court entered an Orderto Show Cause (Order). OnFebruary 6, 2012, Respondent responded to the Order. Respondent'sjustificationfor the late filing was "a calendaring error" and the fact that Respondent's counsel have not handled a proceeding inthis forum before. Response 'to Order, Paragraphs 2, 6, au.d 9. Respondent did not say who made the error. Respondent did notprovide any explanation for why the errorwas made. Respondent further asserts he first became aware ofhis error upon receipt of Cowplainant's Motion for Decision. Response to Order, :Paragraph 2. The Response stated "Respondent'sAnswer does not dispute the basic facts alleged. Instead, he raises legal issues and consti.tutional challengers to the Petition." Response to Order, Paragraph 

### 8. 

### Argument Standard forDecision "The administrative lawjudge shall grant a party's motion for decision 

### ifthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative lawjudge has officially noticed

... showthat there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fuct and that the party making themotion is entitled to a decision as a matter oflaw. Tile party making the motion

... has the
Complainant's Motion for Rccon.sidcration and. Second Motion for Decision JEFFREY M,**HARPER~** F A.A. ATTORNEY Joseph Mocsscr-FAA-201)-1286 TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) ;2Z7·1007 20 1ONM72000 1 Page 2 of 1502/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H 12 13 14 15 16 J. 7 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 burden ofshowing thatthere is no genuine issue ofm.atedal fact disputed by the parties." 

### 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218(£)(5). 

### Merits



### a. Respondent failed to show good catise. An untimely filing rnay be excused only for good cause; lawjudges do not have authority to extend the deadline for filing an Answer absent a showing ofgood cause.**Larry:~** 

### Flying Service (citing 

### In the Matter of Robinson, FAAOrder No. 97-18 at 5 (May23, 1997) and 

### In the Matter of Atlantic WorldAirways, 

### FAA Order No. 95-28 at 

### 3 (December 19, 1995)); 

### In the Matter of Carl 

### P. Langton, FAAOrder No. 93-12 at 6 (March 25, 1993). In determining whether good cause exists, the reason for the document being filed late is examined. 

### In the MaUer of Michael John Costello, FAA OrderNo. 92-l at 5 (Janumy 9, 1992); 

### Langton at 7. Section 13.209 is not intended as a trap fo.r the unwary; the law does not favor defaults.**Larry:~** Flying Service at 

### 7. Procedural rules should be enforced in a non-arbitrary manner, even where the consequence may be severe. 

### Larry:Y 

### Flying Service at 

### 4. Complainant is notrequb:ed to showprejudice. 

### Jd. Both parties risk default ifthey do not file timely pleadings; the Complainant

### is as susceptible to default 

### ifthe Complaintis untimely as th.e Respondent is whenthe Answer is untimely. 

### Jd; (cit\ng 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.208(b)(l) and§ 13.209(£)). Counsel, in particular, are expected to know the rules ofprocedure and meet procedural deadlines those ruJ.es impose. 

### Sqfety Equipment andSign Co. at 2 (cited in 

### In the Matter of AlpineAviation, 

### FAA DocketNo. CP05NM0026, Order served November 2, 2005 at 

### 3). In 

### Safety Equipment, counsel filed a responsive pleading thirty (30) days late. Counsel 

### in that case stated the reason for the late filing was the failure ofhis paralegal to follow established procedures to prevent a default. Here, there is no indication that any ofRespondent's counsel's instructions were not followed

- counsel merely asserts that a "calendaring error" was made. No indica,tion 

### is made ofwho made the error. No indication is made ofwhy th.e error was made. While theAnswer was.filed six (6) days late in this case, versus the thirty (30) days in 

### Safety Equipment, that is onlybecause the en:or was affirmativelybrought to Respondent's attention by Complainant's Motion for Decision. Response to Order, Paragraph 2. Respondent should not be permittedto prejudice Complainant byallowing Respondent to file an untimelyAnswer- particularly when Respondent was only made aware ofand attempted to cure the defect as a result ofComplainant's Motion for Decision on those grounds. Having exercised his right to a hearing, Respondent must fulfill his duty to comply with the Rules ofPractice to preserve that right 

### In the Matter
Complainant's Motion fer Reeonslderatlon rmd Second Motion for Deoi.ston JEFFREY M. HARPER, PMATTORNEY" Joseph Mocsscr- FAA:tOll-1286 TEL: (425) 227-2161: FAX: (425) 227·1007 20lONM72000 1 Pagd oflS**~2/14/2~12** 15:14**4252271~~7 ANI~7**  PAGE**~5/47**

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 of Eugene Joseph Haley, 

### FAA DocketNo. CP05EA00 

### 15, Order served January 20, 2006 at 1. The Administrator inSafety Equipment noted that the. showing ofgood cause iu that casewas ''margioal." Respondent's failure to provide any basis orjustificationfor 

### the "calendaring enor" falls short ofeven the marginal showing inSafety Equipment. Respondent's counsel in this case has approximatelythirty (30) years ofexperience. Exhibit 

### 4. Hehas a duty to represent his client competently and diligently. 

### Umh Rules ofProfessional Conduct, Rules 

### 1.1 and 1.3. Counsel representedRespondent in a related criminal case that was thoroughly litigated. 

### Exhibits 5, 6, and 

### 7. Although Rule 13.209 

### is not meant to be a trap for the 13 14 · tinwary, Respondent is notrepresented by someone who canreasonably claim to be an "unwary" 15 litigant who was "trapped" by the clear deadlines imposed by Rule 13.209. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This is not a case where the late filing was due to;
• Mail delays, 1

• Respondent's incapacity,2
• A plausible misreading ofthe rule,3

• The death ofcounsel,
2 7 • Serious illness, 28 2 9 • An earthquake, avalanche, riot, or other disaster. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 H 42 43 44 J5 j6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Instead, this is a case where experienced counsel or persons under his supervision made a "calendaring mistake." Negligence ofcounsel does not consti.tute good cause. 

### In the Matter of USF Worldwide Inc., 

### FAA DocketNo. CP04EA0013, Order served onNovember 19,2004 at I; see also Cornish 

### v. FAA, 429 F3d 806 at 808 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding dismissal ofappeal by N.T.S.B. where appeal briefwas untimely due to calendaring e:o:orby counsel based on misreading ofwhen the filing period commenced); Costello at 5 ("[M]is interpreting the Rules of Practice is not good cause."). Respondent was affmnativelyput onnotl,ce ofthe deadline twice

- in the original complaint and in the Procedural Order- and, presumably, byhis reading of the J:Ule itself. Respondent failed to file an Answer until January 12, 2012, after Complainant filed its Motion for Decision. Respondent failed to file a motion seeking an extension oftime. Respondent failed to make

### llllY showing ofgood cause at thattime. Respondent failed to f!le anAnswer

1 'flcnor v. ChoicesHotels Intern., Inc. 275 F.3d 1164 at 1165 (9thCir. 2002). 2Pyles v. Mertt Systems Protection Board, 45 F.3d 41l at4)4-16 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 'Le>Pis 

### v. Schopf Dist. #70, 523 F.3d 730 at 739-40 (7th C.ir. 2008). Complainanfs Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion. for Decision Joseph Moesscr- FAA-2011-1286 201ONM72000 1 Page4 of15 JEFFREY M- HARPER, FAAATTOltNEY TEL: (41..5) 227-216): FAX: (425) 227-100702/14/2012 16:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/47

l,**~** 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l. 9 20 21 withinthe time allotted, so the Answer should be stricken, all allegations inthe complaint should be deemed admitted, 

### as provided under 

### 14 C.P.R.§ 

### 13.209(£), and all a:ffinnative defenses dismissed. Finding good cause for the untimely filing ofthe Answer intills case for the reasons stated by Respondent, thereby allowing the case to go forward, would moot rule 14 C.F.K 

### § 13.209(b). Complainantrespectfullyrequests this court reconsider whether good cause has been shown, find that good cause has notbeen shown, and strike Respondent's late-filedAnswer.


### b. Respondentis collaterally estopped from assertingthat the material he offered for transportation was notprohibited hazardous material. There is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact that Respondent offered prohibitedhazardous material for transportation on a passenger aircraft. Although Respondent denies in his Answerthat the materials are hazardous (Answer paragraphs 

### 11-14), he pled guilty to a criminal offense which had as an element his purposeful concealment ofdangerous item.s he 

### kn,ew to be prohibited inhis 2 2 · checked baggage. Exhi.bit 2. Respondent is collaterally estopped from attempting to claim that 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3J. 32 33 34 35 36 3? 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4.6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 the material offered was not hazardous or that is was permittedunder any exception found inthe Hazardous Materials R<;:gulations at 49 C.P.R. Part 171, 

### et seq. (HMR). Collateral estoppel renders issues thathave been necessarily determined by a court iu a previous case conclusive in a subsequent case. 

### }.;fontana 11. 

### U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). In cases arising**und<~r** federal Jaw, :federal principles ofpreclusion are applied. 

### Heiser 

### v. Woodruff, 327 

### U.S. 726 (1946). 

### In the Tenth Circuit, where Respondent's related criminal 

### case was tried, collateral estoppel 

### has four elements: 

### 1) The party against whom the doctrine was invokedwas a party inthe prior action, 2) The issue previously decided is identical with the onepresented in the pending action, 3) The prior actionhas been finally adjudicated on the merits, 4) The party against whom the doctrine is invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. 

### Murdockv. Ute Indian Tribe ofUintah and Ouray Reservation, 975 F.2d 683, 687 (lOth Cir. 1992).4 Adjudication on the merits requires that

### th~ adjudication be necessary to thejudgment. 

### ld

4 Cf, 

### e.g., In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the Naples AirportAuthority, FAA Order No. 2003"1 at ll (August 25, 2003) (footnote citing CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Brotherhood of**Mal~tenance** of Way Employees, 327F.3d 1309, 1317 (lith Cir. 2003)) (issues are identical, issue was actually litigated., issue was a ComplainanfsMotion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for D6eisicn Joseph Moess<r- FAA,ZOII.-1**28~** 201 ONM72000 1 Page 5 o1J5 JE11F'R.EY M. HARPER1 FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007B2/14/2B12 15:14 4252271BB7 ANH7 PAGE B7/47

1 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10 ll J?. 13 14 ;LS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3?. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

,, 3 

# ,, 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### Party inPriorAction: Respondent was a party in a prior action arising out ofthe facts and circumstances ofthis case -the case was captioned 

### "UnitedStates v. Joseph Peter Moesser.'' In accordance with his plea, Respondent was convicted on the charge 

### inthat case inthe United States District Court for the District Court ofUtah onApril20, 2011. Exhibit 

### 1. Identical 

### Issue: The conviction was for obtaining access to the secure area ofan airport by fraud and false pretenses, a violation of 

### 18 U.S.C. 

### § l036(a)(4). The false pretenses charged were "the purposeful concealment in checked baggage ofdangerous items heknewto beprohibited

..." Exhibit 

### 2. Proofofthe false pretenses elementrequired proofthat Respondent pU,tposefully concealed prohibited dangerous items, as that concealment was the "false pretense" at issue. The gravamen ofthe 

### offenses at issue here is that Respondent offered dangerous (e.g., hazardous) materials which were prohibited for carriage in checkedbaggage (e.g., on passenger**airc~aft).** 

### FinalAdjudication on the Merits: Although

### Arizona v. California suggests thatjudgments entered by ''confession, consent, or default" do not constitute final adjudication on the merits, and such settlements ordinarily me 

### not intended to preclude further litigation, that case is

. distinguishable from this one. 530 

### U.S. 392, 

### 414 (2000). 

### In

### Arizona, thejudgmentin questi.on was based on alternative and mut'tmlly exclusive theories. 

### !d. at 417. Here, thejudgmentwas based on an express admission that prohibited hazardous material was offered for transportation; 

### no alternative theory ofguilt 

### is present. Under Rule ll(b )(3) 

### ofthe Federal Ru1es ofCriminal Procedure, a court may notenterjudgment on a 

### guJI1y plea unless a factual basis for thatplea has been established. Thus, in 

### a criminal case tried in a Federal District Court, the entry ofa judgmentnecessarily requires an adjudication ofthe merits ofthe case. The criminal conviction here constitutes a binding detern:iination onthe merits that Respondent offered prohibited dangerous material for transportation in his checked baggage. 

### Full Opportunity to Litigate: Respondent had full opportunity to litigate this issue. The original indictment in his case was filed on November 4, 2009. Exhibit 8. The Indictment charged Respondent with offering hazardous material for transportation 

### in air commerce. Exhibit 8, Count 3. Respondent entered his pleato the superseding misdemeanorinformation inApril 2011, nearly a year and halflater, which, as discussed, necessarily admitted he offered

necessary part of judgment, partyhad a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue); U.S, v. Ruhbayan, 325 F.3d 197, 202 (4thCir. 2003) (issues are identical, i.ssue was actually litigated, issue was necessarily decided,judgment is final, parties had a full and fair opponunity to**litig~te**);Amhan v. ProfessionalAir Traffic Controllers Organization, 672 F.Zd 706,709 (8th Cir. 1982) (issues 

### must be identical; there is 

### afinaljudgrnent onthe rnerits, estopped 

### party was party to prior adjudication; estopped parlyhad a fUll and fair opportunity to litigate); US. v. Arnett, 327 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003) (issues are identical, issue was litigated, issue was decided); Matter of McWhorter, 887 F.2d J564, 1566 (11th Cir. 1989) (issues arc identical, issue was litigated, issue was necessarypart ofjud.gment, parly had full and fair opportunity to litigate). Complai.nanfs Motion for Roconsldcration and Second Motion :for Decision .Josepb Moesser- Fi\A-2011,1286 20 lONM72000I Page 6 of 15 JEFFREY M, li<RPER, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

### n 12 13 14 15 16**~.** 7 18 l.9 20 21 Z?. 23 24 25**~6** 27 28 29 3D 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 H 45 46 47 48 4. 9 50 51 52 53 prohibited dangerous material. Inthe intervening time, the question ofwhether the material offered 

### was prohibited

### was thoroughly contested, with Respondent making substantially the same arguments he makes here. Exhibit 

### 6. Respondent had the opportunityto litigate the issue, and did so. Respondent'sAnswer denies that the materials in question were hazardous material. For the reasons discussed, Respondent is collaterally estopped :from makingthis argument. As a matter oflaw ofthe case, the materials at issue were hazardous and prohibited from transport on passenger aircraft. Respondent otherwise admits in his Answer all allegations necessary to prove the offenses- he offered the material, in a bag containing no identification markings or labels, without a Shipper's Certification orDeclaration ofDangerous Goods, without appropriate shipping papers, wi.thout providing emergencyresponse information, for transportation on Delta Airlines Flight 1512. Answer II.? and Il.15; Response to Order, Paragraph 8,



### c. Even assumingthat theAnswerwas filed timely, andRespondent is notestopped from asserting his defenses, the material Respondent offe.-ed for transportation on a passenge.- ai.-c.-aft was bazardous material underthe Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) 

### (49 C.F.R. Part 171, etseq.). The Answer claimsthe material offeredby Respondent qualified for the small anns ammunition exemption found at49 C.F.R. § 175.1O(a)(8) andthat the definition ofsmall anns ammunition should be construed inpari materia with the defi.nition found in 27 C.F.R. 

### § 555.11. Respondent's argument fails for three reasons. First, Respondent amnittedthe material was prohibited when pleading guilty in a related criminal case, as an element ofthe offense was his concealment ofprohibited material. Second, the defmitions ofthe materials in question are sufficiently clearto establish as a matter oflawthat the materials were hazardous material, and not exemptedfrom the HMRby49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a)(8). Third, even assuming the HMR definition isnot clear, readJ,ng the HMR inpari materia with the regulations found at 27 C.F.R. results in a dcfrnition ofsmall arm.s ammunition that would also exclude thematerial Respondent offered from qualifYing for the HMR 

### § 175.1 O(a)(8) exception. Respondent:Spreviousplea establishes that he knew the materials wereprohibited. As previously discilssed, Respondententered a guilty pleato obtaining access to the secure area ofanairport by fraud and false pretenses, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1 036(a)( 4). The false pretenses charged and pled to were "thepurposeful concealment in checked baggage 

### Of dangerous items he knewto beprohibited

..." Even ifajudgmentbased on a pka does not have preclusive effects underthe collateral estoppel doctrine, thatjudgment may nonetheless beused as evidence thatthe facts contained therein are true. Restatement (Second) ofJudgments, § 85, Comment b.

Complainant'sMotion for Reconsideration and SecondMotion for Decision Joseph Moesser- FAA-20 11-I286 2010NM720001 Page 7 of 15 JEFFREY M, HARPER, I' AA Ano•NEv TEL: (425) 227,2161; FAX: (4Z5) 227·1 00702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 09/47

1 2**~** 

# • 5 6 7 

### Having previously acknowledged, by pleading guilty, that the materials at issue 

### inthis case were dangerous items were dangerous items -prohibited items, in the case ofthe Hodgdon Triple Seven Pellets -Respondent asks this Courtto accept an argumentthat they were somehow permitted, rather than prohibited. Respondent cannot have it both ways.


### s The material offiredby 

### respondent does not qualify for the smallarms exception foundat**~** . 49 C.RR. 

### § 175.JO(a)(8). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2)_ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 H 45

. 46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### Respondent claimsthat smokeless powderfor small arms and primers are "ammunitionfor small arms." Answer II.2. Th.us, Respondent argues that the material be offered for trausportation qualified for the exception from the HMR found at 49 C.F.R. § 175.)

### O(a)(8): "lb.is subchapter [Subchapter C - Hru-.ardous Material Transportation] does not apply to the following hazardous materials when carried by aircraft passengers... (8) Small arms ammunition. for personal use carried 

### by a... passenger in checked baggage only

...'' Answer, ll.l. Respondent ignores the HMR definitibn of"Cartridges, smaH arms" in making his argument. The Hazardous Material Table, found at 49 C.F.R. § 172.101, contains an entry for "Ammunition, Small 

### Ann.s." It reads: "[Ammunition, SA (small arms), 

### see] Cartridges for weapons, [etc]" Under "Cartridges for weapons" the table lists fifteen (15) entries, all. ofwhich are forbidden 

### for transportation onpassenger aircraft, with the exception of"Cartridges for weapons, blank [or] Cartridges, small arms, blank" and "Cartridges for weapons, i.uert projectile [or] Cartridges, small arms." All are classified as Class 

### 1, which are explosives. 49 C.F.R § 1.72.101 and 49 C.P.R. 

### § 173.2. The two (2) entric::s which are not outrightforbidden are cartridges with haz.ard class l.4S. Definitions ofterms used for explosives are found in 49 C.F.R. § 173.59. It defines "Cartridges, small arms" as: "Ammunition consisting ofa cartridge case fitted with a center or rim fire primer and containing both a propelling charge and solid projectile(s)." Applying the admitted facts ofthis case to this regulatory definition, the material offered by Respondent does not meet this definition. First, none ofthe casings at issue were "fitted" with unexpended primers. Answer U.l0. Second, the two (2) shell casings containingtwenty-five

Complainant's ·Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Decision Joseph Moesser- FM-20!1·1286 20) ONM72000I Page 8 of 15 JEFFREYM. HARm<, FAA. ATTORNoY TEL: (425) 227-2!6!; FAX: (425)227-!00702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 10/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 

### n 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 30 

## n 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 q9 50 51 52 53 

### (25) primers did not contain a propelling charge. Answer il.lO.b. The material at questionhere more closely fits the definition of"Cartridges for weapons," definc::d as: "(1) Fixed (assembled) or semi-fixed (partially assembled) ammunition designed to be fired from weapons. Each cartridge includes all the components necessary to function the weapon once... Separate loading ammun.itlon is included under this name and description when the propelling charge and projectile are packed together." 14 C.F.R. 

### § 173.59. This definition specifi.cally includes partially assembled anummition, such as that offered by Respondent. Materials meeting that definition, however, are forbidden from carriage on passenger aircraft. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 172.101. Respondents inpari materiaargument relies on an inapposite definitionfrom theATF regulations. Respondent asks this Court to consttue the tenn "small arms ammunition for personal use" in 

### pari materia with Title 27, Code ofFederal Regulations (ATF regulations). Answer, Affirmative Defense II.3. Respondent points the Courtto the definition found at 27 C.F.R. 

### § 555.11. 5 

### ·Complainant contests that this defmition may be properly considered 

### inpari materia with 49 C.F.R. 

### § 175.10(a)(8). Th.e inpari materia doctrine does not apply inthis case.6 

### The regulations at issue were promulgated for djffere6t purposes- ATF regulations relate to possession ofexplosives in airports;7 

### the HMRrelate to the transportation ofhazardous materials.8 

### The regulations create the legal standard; they do not serve merely to.interpret and apply it. Eventhe text ofthe ATF regulations recognizes that they are oflimited applicabilitySection 555.2 oftheATF regulations reads "TIJ.e provisions in this part are in addition to, 

### and are not in lieu of, any other provision oflaw, or regulations, respecti.ng commerce in explosive

' "Ammunition. Small arms ammu,uition or cartridge cases, primers, bul.lcts, or smokeless propellants designed for use in small a.rms..." 'Respondent's inpari materia argument was adjudicated in Respondent's related criminal case. Th.ejudge found that the doctrine did n.ot apply. US v. Moesser, Case 2:09-cr-00842 (D. Utili), Memornndum Decision and Ot:der Denying in Part and Deferring Ruling on the Remaining Issues Raised in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment, Docket Docum.ent No. 68, Page 19 ("'".the Court finds that the doctrine ofinpari materia does not apply in the instant ca.,e.")- The doctrine ofcollateral estoppel precludes Respondent from re-litigating the issue here. See discussion at b. above. 7 E.g. I 8U.S.C. § 842(j): "It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in cO!!fon:oity with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General."

. 849 U.S.C- § 5J03(a)-{b): "TI1e Secretary (ofTransportation] shall designate materiaL., as hazardous when rl1e Secretary deterwines that transporting the material in commerce... may pose an unreasonable risk to tlJe health and safety ofproperty
... The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous ma.terial iu intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.•! Complainant's .Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion :for Decj!>ion Joseph**Mo~""'-** FAA-2011-1286 20TONM72Q00l !'age 9 ofl5 JEFFREY M. H.I..RPERj FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227,2161; FAX: (425) 227-100702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 11/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l.1 12 13 14 15 16 ).7 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5J. 52 53 

### materials

..." Thus, the HMR are in additionto the ATF regulations; the HMR can add additional restrictions above and beyond those imposed by the ATF regulations. Even

### ifthe inpari materia 

### doctrine does apply, Respondent reUes on the wrong ddinition from Title 27. The definition advanced by Respondent is found inPart 555 ofTitle 27, Code of Federal Regulations, which is captioned "Commerce in Explosives" 

### [Emphasis added]. Respondent, however, asks this courtto find that the material he offered was not an explosive 

### under the HMR, but instead qualified as ammunition. 

### Respondent argues he was thus entitled to the benefit ofthe HMR exception found at49 C.F.R. § 

### 175.10(a)(8), which applies to small arms ammunition. Thus, ifthis Court were to read the BMR inpari materia 

### withtheATF regulations, a far more appropriate defmitionto look to for guidance would be the one found in Part 478 of Title 27, captioned "Commerce in Firearm.s andAmmunition" 

### [Emphasis added]- after all, Respondent claims he is entitled to the benefit ofthe HMR exception applying to ammunition. That Part proscribes regulations relating to commerce in amm1.1nition. 27 C.P.R.§ 478.l(a). The Part 478 definition, found at 27 C.P.R. § 478.11, reads: Ammunition.

### Ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm otherthan an antique**fireartn~** 

### The term shall not include (a) any shotgun shot or pellet not designed for use as a single, complete projectile load for one shotgun hull or casing, nor (b) any unloaded, nonmetallic shotgun hull or casing not having a primer. Respondent acknowledged that the material here was found in a shotgun casing, which did not ha:ve aprimer. 

### Answer II.!0(admitting the "40 remaining shells had expended primers

..."). The material offered by Respondent is excluded from the 27 C.F.R. 

### § 478.11 definition ofammunition as itdoes not have a functioning primer and thus is not a complete projectile load. Even if49 C.P.R. 

### § 175.10(a)(8) is construed inpari materia 

### with Title 27, Code ofFederal Regulations, the definition ofammunition most applicable in thi,s case denies Respondent the benefit ofthe HMR exception. Theproper classification for the material o.fferedby respondent is as alleged in the Complaint. 

### Respondent admits he offered CCI 209M Shotshell primers for transportation on DeltaAirlines FUght 151.2. Answer II.7 and II.IO.b. These primers are Classified as hazardous material under the I-IMR; the proper shipping name is "Primers, cap type, Class 1.4S, UN0044, PG II." Exhibits 9 and 10, Respondent admits he offered Hodgdon Triple Seven Pellets for transportation onDeltaAirlines Flight 1512. An.swer II.7 and ILlO.a. Respondent's fmal destination was Johannesburg, South Africa. Answer TI.2. These primers are classified as hazardous material under theHMR; the proper shipping name is "Propellant, solid, Class 1.3C, 

### UN0499, PG II." Exhibits 11 and 12.

Complait-u:J.nt's Mot1on fur Reconsideration and**S~cond** Motlon for**Dc~;;ision** JEFFREY M, fu.Rf'BR, FAA ATTORNEY Joseph Moesser-FAA-2011-1286 TEL: (425) 227,2161; FAX: (425)227-1007 20lONM720001 P•ge 10ofl502/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 12/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

### n 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 j7 48 49 50 5l. 52 53 

### AlthoughExhibits 11 and 

### 12 indicate that Triple Seven Pellets may, under some circumstances, be classified as "Smokeless powder for small arms [100 pouods or less], Class 4.1, NA3178, PG 

### JJ," that classification is not available in. this case. First, the packaging method used 

### by Respondent is not approved- respondent packed the material in shotgun shells, which are not ammunition boxes (Packaging MethodA as described 

### in Exhibit 11), and while they are plastic tubes, they do nothave plastic end caps secmely affixed (Packaging Method 8 as described in Exhibit ll). Answer II. IO.a. Second, this classification may only be used for domestic shipments; Respondent was traveling internationally. 14 C.F.R. § 172.101(b)(3), Answer II.2. Under either classification the material is forbidden onpassenger aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 172.101.


### d. Conclusion- There are no genuine issues of

### material fact; Complainant is therefore entitled to a Decision as a 

### matter oflaw. Complainant is entitled to a Motion for Decision as there are no genuine issues ofmaterial facts for the following reasons:

• Respondent failed to show good cause for filing the Answer late, and has therefore admitted all allegations and waived all affirmative defenses.

• Respondent is estopped from claimingthat the powder and primers he offered for transport were not regulated or prohibited hazardous rnateri.al.

• The powder and primers are not small arms

### ammunition, and therefore Respondent is not entitled to the small arms ammunition exception of 14 C.F.R. § 175.10(a)(8). ·
• The material is properly classified as ha7..ardous material 

### as alleged in the Complaint. Respondent admits to all relevant factual allegations in his Answer and Response to Order to Show Cause. 

### Sanction As discussed above, Respondent has admitted every allegation inthe Complaint. The affirmative defenses raised 

### by Respondent do not present any genuine issues ofmaterial fact. The sanction sought by Complainant is appropriate given the intentional. and deliberate efforts of Respondentto conceal prohibited and regulatedhazardous material inhis luggage offered for transportation- particularly where he hadbeen speci.fically informed by federal agents ofthe prohibited and. regulated nature ofthe material. Respondent has admitted to that conduct.

Complainant'Sl Motion for Reconsideration and SccoTid Motion for Decision l:r;.FFR.T;;"( M-**HAR~,** FAA ATTORNEY .Joseph Moesser- FJIA-2011-1286 TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227"1007 2010NM720001 Page ll ofl502/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 13/47

1 2 3 1 5. 6 7 

### Apersonwho knowingly violates the statute or regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous material is "liable to 

### the United States Government for a civil penalty ofat least $250 but not more than $50,000 for eachviolation.'' 49 U.S.C. 

### § 5123(a). In 

### detenniningthe amount ofa civil penalty, the following factors must be considered:

a • the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity ofthe violation; 9 10 H 12 ).3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 4.3 j4 4.5 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### • with respect to the violator, the degree ofculpability, any history ofprior violations, the abilityto pay, and any effect on the ability to continue to do business; and
• other matters thatjustice requires. 49 U.S.C. § 5123(c). In guiding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) prosecutorial discretion, the Agency has developed penalty guidelines, which are found in FAA Order 2150.3B,Appendix C. Up to $50,000 may be assessed in cases involving intentional or deliberate violations. FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix C, Figure 

### C-I(V). Respondent was stopped at the Salt Lake City airport, Utah, by agents from the FAA, Transportation SecurityAdministration, and Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. Complaint Paragraph II.3, Answer Paragraph II.3. He was asked ifhis luggage contained an,y runmnuition. Complaiut Paragraph 

### JI-3, Answer Paragraph Il3. 

### In response, Respondentproduced a box. from his luggage which contained material prohibited and regulated under the HMR found at 49 C.P.R. Part 171. Complaint Paragraphs 

### U.4, 5, and 11; Answer Paragraphs 

### li.4 and 5. The box also contained what appeared to betwo boxes ofshotgun shells. Complaint Paragraphs 4.c and 10, Answer Paragraphs 4 and 10. Actual shotgun shells are pennitted as ORM-D 

### materiaL 49 C.P.R. § 173 .63(b )(i). He was infonnedthe HodgdonTriple Seven Pellets were forbidden and the CCI 209M Shotshell primers were regulated. Complaint Paragraph 5, Answer Paragraph 

### ll.5. He sturen.dered theprohibited aud regulated material he had revealed to the Agents. Complaint Paragraph II.5, Answer Paragraph JI.5. He was then askedifhe had any other prohibited material; he stated he did not, although his bag in fact did still contain prohibited material Complaint Paragraphs 6 and 10-14,Answer Paragraph Il.6 and 

### ll.lO. He then offered thebag, containing th,e boxes ofshotgun shells, to DeltaAirlines for transportation. Complaint Paragraph 117, 

### Answer Paragraph Il.7. The bag bore no identification markings orlabels indicating its contents, and 

### it was not accompanied by 

### a Shipper's Certification or Declaration**ofDange~ous** 

### Goods. 

### !d. The top row ofshells in each 

### box appeared to be new, Ull.expended shells with intact primers. Complaint Paragraph II.!0, Answer Paragraph II.!0. All shells Ullder this top row, however, were expended roUllds which contained prohibited andregulated hazardous material; Respondent did nottell the federal agents about this

Comp)ai;nant's Motion for**Reconsid~ration** and Second Motion. fm De:cjsjolJ**.Tosep~** Moesser-FAA-2011·1286 20IONM72000I Page 12 of15 .lE!'FREY M. HAR1'ER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 14/47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l. 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3?. 33 

### prohibited and regulated material, even after being asked. Complaint Paragraphs II.6 

### and Il.J0- 14,Answer Paragraphs II.6 and Ill0. This case involves grave violations- the offering ofexplosives for transportation. Th.e circumstances under which the material was offered are aggravating: 1. The Respondent was put on specific notice ofthe prohibitc:d andregulated nature ofthe offered ·materials by Federal Agents shortly before the luggage containingthe material was offereqfor transportation. 2. The manner in which the materials were packed demonstrates anintentional and deliberate effort to conceal the materials from the authorities. These factors also showthat Respondenthas a high degree ofculpability, which is further exacerbated by the fact that he lied to Federal Agents regarding the contents ofhis luggage. Underthose circumstances, a civil penalty near the maximum permissible sanction is appropriate.


### Exhibits 1. Judgment in a Criminal Case, Case 2:09-cr-00842,TS. 2. Superseding Misdemeanor Information, Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS. 3. Certified Mail Receipt and Return Receipt.
34 

### 4. Utah Bar Membership entry for Respondent's CounseL 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 

### 5. Attorneys ofRecord, United States District Conrt for the District ofUtah Case No. 2:09-cr-00842-TS. 6. Excerpts from Memoran.da in Support ofMotions to Dismiss, Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS. 7. Docum.ents List, United States District Court for the District ofUtah Case No. 2:09-cr-00842-TS.
45 

### 8. Jndictr:neut, Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS. 46 47 

### 9. Classification ofExplosives (#209M Shotshel! Primers). 48 49 

### 10. MSDS for Shots

### hell Primer- 209M, Excerpt. 9 50 51 52 53 'Available online at http://gJarp.atk;,comJ2008/msds/Prl.mer_209.pdf, last visited January 26, 2012. Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Deciodon**Jr.:r~~;.y** M, HARPER; FAAATTORNEY Joseph Moesser- FAA-2011-1286 TBL.: (42S) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 20IONM72000J Page 13 of 1502/14/2012 16:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 15/47

1 

### IL Classification ofExplosives (Triple Seven). 2 3 

### 12. Hodgdon 

### "Which UN Numbers Do 

### l Use for Hodgdon Powders?" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

### n 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 H 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the 

### FAA respectfully requests that 

### this court reconsider its Order Vacating Order

### to Show Cause and Accepting Answer, strike 

### the Answer, and grant this Motion for Decision. Respondent has admitted all the allegations 

### inthe complaint and raised no affirmative defensethat presents a genuine issue ofmaterial fact. The powder and primers offered by Respondent did notqualify for the small arms ammunitiou exception. They are properly classified as hazardous material as a matter oflaw. There are no genuine issues of material fact; the sanction sought is appropriate under the facts. DATED 

### this 14thday ofFebruary, 2012.

# ~~ FAAAttorney

Complainanfls Motion for Reconsideration and Second .Motion for Decision .Josepll Moesser-FAA·2011·12SG 20l ONM72000l Page 14

## of ]5 JEFFREY M. HARJ>OR, FAA ATTOONlCY TEL: (425) 227·2161; FAX: (425) 227-100702/14/2012 15:14

1 2 3 4 5 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 15/47



## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6 I hereby certi:f'y that the foregoing Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion 7 for Decision has been served via facsinlile and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this 

### s date, to the following: 9 1.0 Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 11 Office ofHearings, M-20 12 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. J.3 Washington, D.C. 20590 14 FAX: (202) 366-7536 15 16 17 18 19 

### ·2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 H

. 42

43 44**~5** 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Attn:**He~ring** Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation**Administr~tion** 800 IndependenceAvenue SW Washington, DC 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5020 Gregory G. Skordas Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 341 SouthMai.n Street, Suite 

### 303 SaltLike City, UT 84111 

### FAX: (801) 531-8885
Datedthis 14th day ofFebruary, 2012. 

# /if 

# CLv.

Moifair Chin Office**ofRegio~l** Counsel (ANM-7) Federal AviationAdministration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, VVA 98057 

### (425) 227-2160

Cornplalnant1s Motion·for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Decision Joseph Moesser- FAA.-20] 1-1286 JEFFREY M.**l-!AR.eB~,**

### P AI\. A.TTORNr.v TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 2010NM720001 Page 15 of1502/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 17/47
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 85 Filed 04/20/11 Page 1 of 1


### FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

# Wniteb**~tate~ 11Bt~tritt**  

# qCourt ·ZOll APR 20 

## A l= 30

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA 

### vs. Joseph PeterMoesser

Date oflmposition: April 15, 2011 DEFENDANT: Joseph Peter Moess<:ir

. 

# @ pleaded guilty to count(s) 

## iJB(%ttirt of Ql:ltab DISTRICT OF UTAH 

### JUDGMENTIN A**CRI~=C="'"A=S.,...E~,.,.,-­** DEPUTY CLERK

Case Number: 2:09-cr-000842-TS PlaintiffAttorney: Mike Kennedy
DefendantAttorney: Rebecca Skordas

Count 1 of**th~** :Misdemeanor Information
Title & Section !8:1036(a)(4) Nature ofOffense Count Number<s) 1 Probation: 6 Months Entry by False Pretense to any Real PropertyIVessel/ Aircraft 

## [!] Count(s)

.All counts ofthe Indictment (is)(are) dismissed on the motion ofthe United.States.

ll The defendant shall cooperatewith the government by providing Public Service Announcements; and 2) The defendant shall perform 50 hours ofcommunity service as approved 

## by·usro.

CRIMlNAL MONETARY PENALTIES

TOTAL FINE: Count 

### l: None ASSESSMENT: Count 1: $10.00

TOTAL: $10.00

Da.ted: 4/19!:20H


## Exhibit 102/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 18/47
Case 2:09"cr-00842-TS Document 80 Filed 04113/11 Pa.ge 1 of 2



### FILED CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, United States Attorney 

### (#633) U.S. DISTRICT COURT MICHAEL KENNEDY, Assistant United States Attorney**(#8759~0tl** 

### APR I 3 

### p 

### 3: 4 \ JOHNW. HUBER, Assistant United States Attorney (#7226) · Attorneys for the UnitedStates ofAmerica. DISTRICT OF UTAH 

### 185 South State Street, Ste. 

### 300 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111**BY•~:=-~=-** 

### Telephone: (801) 524-5682 • Facsimile: (801) 325-3387 OE.PUTY 

### CLERK
· e-mail: michael.kennedy@usdoj.gov • john.huber@usdoj.gov

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
. 2:09 CR 842 TS Plaintiff,

vs. JOSEPH PETER MOESSER, 

### . 

# . Defendant.

The United States Attorney charges:

COUNT! SUPERSEDING MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION 

# vro. 18 

# u.s.c. § 

### l036(a)(4) ENTRY BY FALSE PRETENSES TO THE SECURE AREA OF AN .AIRPORT

On or about October 1, 2010, in the Central Division ofthe District ofUtah, JOSEPH PETER MOESSER,


## Exhibit 202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 1g/47
Case 

### 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 

### 80 Filed 

### 04/13/11 Page 

### 2 of 

### 2

the 

### Defendant herein, by 

### fraud 

### and false pretenses, to 

### wit, the purposeful concealment in checked baggage ofdangerous items he knew to be prohibited and which he expected to accompany him on the 

### aircraft, did enter and attempt to enter 

### the secure 

### area ofthe Salt Lake City International Airport, an airport within the meaningof49 U.S.C. § 

### 47102, all in violation of IS U.S.C. 

### § 1036(a)(4), and punishable under !8 U.S.C. 

### § I036(b)(2).

CARLIE CHRISTENSEN United States Attorney



### MICHAEL KENNEDY Assistant UnitedStates Attorney

-2-02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7

ru 

# "' rn rn , l:r l:r 

## ,.., r-- r.:l <::J 0 t::J •i'''''**'•,:,·-~** ',_. ·' :·1'0,'·::.' PAGE 20/47

<:::> l:r ru <::J t::lj 

## ,..,. D 1'- 

### Gregory G. Skordas, Esq. 341 South Main**Stre~t.** Suite 303 Salt Lake City, UT 84111



### • • 

### • II! Complete lten'lS 1, 2 1 and 3.**Als~** complst€1

item 4if Re$·tricted D@!ivery l:!l dealMd. i!il Prlnt your**n~~** .;,nd address on the rever.:::e

- so that wa ca;h return tile card to you. l!!il Attach th!!: -c:ard to the back of ths.mailp!ece,

or on**th~** 1ront It space**p~l1ilitS.** 

### Gregory G. Skordas, Esq
.

.341 South 

### Main Street, Suite 303

.Salt Lake 

### City, UT 

### 84 Ill

·---·...
2. Article Number

(n"ar1sfer tram Sr:!IVIGe fabel) 6.**RElc~ivecl** by (Pn"ntO!d Name) C,**O~ta** of**I:Jellvt~ry**
o.**l~t!anvedl~PJ!.W~9-~Iff~ra~~1mm** Item 1? t:l**Y~** ··-· If**Yo$,'B""i!.W'~~~ill~!fJffi).~** 0 No 

## DEC ill il 

## :>3!1**S41rvlo~ l)!p~**  :1**Otit~tlfflild M~~~**  CJ Ragleterad Ll**l~ured M~11**  Cl E)q.'lrw":; Mail D Retum Receipt fCir**MerchanOis~** I:J C.O.D. 4,**~e~rletr;~d O~llvttry1**  (Sxtra Pse) 0**y~** 7010 0290 

## oooo 7199 3352 PS Form3811, Fobruary 2004 Domestl!l**R~tum Fl.ec~lpt** 



## Exhibit 302/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 21/47 USPS

- Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1

;.;;:,;; UNinDSTI.ITES i:1!>Ino 1twu I Jl!'".illll POSTJJL**SERVICE~· ~** 


## Track & 

## Confirm Search Results Labei/Reoeipt Number: 7010 0290 0000 7199 3352 Servir:e(s): Certified Mallllll Sta:tus: Dellverad Your lt9m was de!lverad at-11 :43 am on December 05, 2011 in SALT LAKE CTTY, UT S411 1.
Datafle-d Results: Truk & Confirm**~**

E:t'lter LabG!/Racolot Number,

• DellvoMd, Docomber 05,2011, 11:43 am, SALT LAK!: CITY, UT 84111 • Procosood through USPS Sort Faclllty, becember 04, 2011, 4:2S om, SALT**I.AK~** CITY, UT 84199**Cil;~lpmer** $mvlge Gm.:'l Sr;rvicc'j CopyrlghtJil) 2010 USPS. All Rights Reserved, No PEAR AI;\ EW OCll<l FOIA

http:lftrkcnfun1

.smi.usps.com!PTS!ntemetWeb/lnterLabellnquiry,do**?origTrackNum~?O** 1 0... l/9/20 1202/14/2012 15:14 PublicDirectory

Portal Home 4252271007 ANM7

Submit S@arch 

### I

## r Sho-w All 

### Membership information Nome: SKORDAS, GREGORY G Member ID: 03865 MemberType: A!torney Llcense-statLis: Active**Ficr~:** SKORDAS CASTON & HYDE, L.L.C. 341 S MAIN ST STE 303 Addross:**Sa~** Lake City, Utah 84111 U.S.A_ Phone: 801-531-7444 Fax: 601·531·6865**E~mail:** gskordas@st::hhlaw.com Law School: UniverSity of Utah Graduated: 1982 Bar**Admlssio~:** 10106/1982 PAGE 22/47 Page 1 of 1

-



## Exhibit 4**http://www.myutahbar.org/PublicDirectory/PublicDircctory.aspx?s=skordas&m~03865** 217/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 23/47 CMIECF- U.S. District Court:utd-Query Attorneys Page 1 of2



### 2:09-cr-00842-TS All Defendants USA 

### v. Moesser Date filed: 11105/2009 Date terminated: 04/20/2011 Date ofl'lst filing: 09/23/2011



### K. ScottH'lmilton DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 500 WOODWARD STE 400 DETROIT, MI48226 

# Attorneys

(313)223-3041 representing khamilton@dickinsonwright.com·

Assigned: 07/30/2010

. PROHAC VICE ATTORNEYTO BENOTICED



### John W. Huber US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801 )524-5682 ' jobn.huber@usdoj.gov

Assigned: 03/09/2010 ATTORNEY TO BENOTICED
Michael P. Kennedy US ATIORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801)524-5682 ntichael.kennedy@usdoj.gov

A.ssigned: 11!0512009 LEADATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BENOTICED Gregory G. Skordas

. SKORDAS CASTON & HYDE 341 S MAIN ST STE 303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)531-7444 representing

.

representing

representing

https://ecf_ntd.nscourts.gov/cgi-binlqryAttomeys.pl?72820 .Joseph Peter Moesser (1) TERMINATED: 04/2012011 (Defendanr)

National Rifle Association (Amicus)

USA (Piaimijj)

USA (Plailltiff)



### Joseph Peter 

### Moesser (!) TERMINATED: 04/2012011 

## Exhibit 5 217/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007**ANI~7** PAGE 24/47 CM/ECF

- U.S. District Court:utd-Query Attorneys Page 2 of2

gskordas@scbhlaw.com

Assigned: 1111912009 LEADATTORNEY ATTORNEYTO BENOTICED
Rebecca H. Skordas SKORDAS CASTON & HYDE
. 341 S MAIN ST STE 303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)531-7444 rskordas@schhlaw.com

Assigned: 11/1912009 LEADATTORNEY ATTORNEYTO BENOTICED
James D. Vilos PO BOX 1148 CENTERVILLE, UT 840 14 (801)295-3340 mitchvilos@gro.aiJ.com

Assigned: 08/271:2010 ATTORNEY.TOBENOTICED representing

representing (Defendant)

Joseph Peter Moesser (1) TERMINATED: 0412012011 (Defendant)

National Rifle Association (Amicus)



## I PAC.ER Service Center 

# I I Transaction**Recei~t** 

## I 

# I ()2/07/2012 1:1:35:42 

# I !rACER Login: llus3305**IICii<~t**

# Code: I I Descri[lllon: !!Attorney List 

### jjscarch**Critcri~:** 

### jj2:09·cr-00842-TS 

## I !Billable Pages: 

### jl 

## IICost: 

### jjo os 

# I

https

### :/I ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi•bin!qryAttomeys.pl?72820 2/7/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 31 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 24

Rebecca Hyde Skordas (#6409) SKORDAS, CASTON & HYDE, LLC 341 So. Main Street, Suite 303 Salt Lake City, UT 84U l Telephone: (801) 531-7444 Facsimile: (801) 531-8885 Attorney for the Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERrCA, Plaintiff,
v. JOSEPHPETER MOESSER, Defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

### DISMISS

THE INDICTMENT

Case No. 2:09-CR-00842 Judge Ted Stewart

The Defendant, Joseph Peter Moesser, by and through hls attorney ofrecord, Rebecca Hyde Skordas, and pursuant to Rule J2(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, submits this Memorandum in Support ofthe Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. 

### FACTS PAGE 25/47

Mr. Moesser is an accompli$hed big-game and nati,onaJly-recogoized hunter having shot 34record-book animals. He has traveled worldwide to hunt, including traveling four times to Africa, five times to Argentina, to Mongolia, Chlna, Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia and

numerous states within the United States. He is also 

### a board member and pastpresident of

### the 

### Utah Chapter of

### the Safari 

### Club International.
1 

## Exhibit 602/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 31 Filed 05/12/10 Page 7 of 24

b. This CourtShould Dismiss Count 1 ofthe Indictment because Small Arms Ammunition is Not anExplosive or IncendiaryDevice underU.S.C. § 465()5(b)(3). 49 D.S.C. §46505(b)(3) states that "an individual shall be fmed uoder Title 18, imprisoned for not more than 

### 10 years, or both, ifthe individual

... (3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device." However, the DOTbas created an exception to the general requirements of49 U.S.C. §46505(b)(3) for passengers carrying "small arms ammunition.'' 49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a) states: This subchapter does not apply to
..·. small arms ammunition for personal use carriedby 

### a crewmember orpassenger in checked baggage only, ifsecurely ·packed in box.es orother packagings specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. Like the ATF exceptionin 18 U.S.C. § 844(g)(2), theDOT created an exception to the general prohibition for small arm,s aoo.munitioo in 49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a). However, unlikethe 

### A.TF regulati.on in C.F.R. § 555.11, theDOT has not defined "ammunition," eith.er .in a regulation, statement or directive, Where two statutes orregulations use the same term and only one provides a definition, courts construe the statutes orregulation to be in pari materia and apply the explicit definition to both terms. This is because courts assume that "whenever Congress passes 

### a new statute, it acts a:ware ofall previous statutes on the
same subject." Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 244 (1972); See also United Stares v. Fillman, .162 F.3d 1055, !058 (lOth Cir. 1998) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 842(i) and 18 U.S.C, 

### § 92Z(n) to be inpari materia since both statutes related to the same subject
matter andboth used the term "indictment," but onlythe latter statute defined the term); 7 PAGE 25/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 .ANM7
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 31 Filed 05/12110 Page 8 of 24

United Telecommunications, 

### lnc. v. Commissioner, 589 F.2d 1383, 1390 (lOth Cir. 1978) (holding that the 

### inpari materia doctrine applies to regulations as well as statutes). The inpari materia rule applies in this case. Both 49 U.S.C. §46505(b)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 844(g)(l) share the same subject matter: prohibiting hazardous· materi.al during airline travel. Both statutes have clarifying regulations that exempt small 

### arms ammunition from the general prohibition against el'plosives. Cf 49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a); 27 C.P.R.§ 555.11. The key difference between the two regulations is that the ATF defined "ammunition" to include "smokeless propellants designed for use in small arms" in 27 C.P.R. § 555.11 and 

### the DOT provided no definition of"small 

### arms ammunition." Thus, the smokeless powderfor small anns that form.s the basis ofthis in.di.ctwent is ''small a<ms ammunition" within the meaning of49 C.P.R. § 175.10(a) and exempt from the prohibition i(l49 

### U.S.C. §46505(b)(3). For this reason, the Court should dismiss Count 

### 1ofthe Indictment.


### c. This Court Should Dismiss 

### Count 

### 3 ofthe Indictment because Small Arms Ammunition is Excluded from the Prohibition Against Delivering 

### Property Containing Hazardous

### Material to an Air Carrier Under 

### 49 U.S.C. § 

### 46312. 49 U.S.C. §46312 states that: A person shall be fined under Title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, orboth, iftheperson, in violation ofa regulation orrequirement related to the transportation ofhazardous material prescribed by the Secretary ofTransportation

... (1) willfully delivers, orcauses to be delivered, property containing hazardous material to an 

### air cauier or to arJ operator ofa civil aircraft for transportation in air comrnerce. The Indictment also alleges that Mr. Moesse.r vi.olated DOTregulations by carrying PAGE 27/47

smokeless powder for small arms under49 U.S.C. § 171.2(e) (establishing labeling air packaging

802/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 28/47
Case 2:09'cr"00842,TS Document 31 Filed 05/12/10 Page 9 of 24

requirements for hazardous material); 49 C.F.R. § 173.27(b)(l) (prohibiting the t:r:ansportatiou of any materia[designated as "forbidden" in 49 C.F.R. § 172.101); and 49 C.F.R. § !75,3 (prohibitiug air transport ofhazardous material without following the requirements of subchapter C. However, none ofthese requirements criminalize Mr. Moesser' s conduct because 49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a)(8) exempts "small arms ammunition for personal use',' from the requirements of subplirt C. See 49 C.F.R. § 175.1**0(~.)** (swting that "this subchapter (i.e., §§ 171-185) does not apply to the following hazardous materials when carried by aircraft passengers or crewmembers

... (8) small arms ammunition for personal use"). Forthe

reasons mentioned above, 49 C.F.R. § 175.10(a)(8)provides an exception to the statutory requirements that form the basis ofCount 3. None of the statutes the Government alleges Mr. Moesser violated encompass smokeless powder for small arms. Therefore, this Court should dismiss Count 3 ofthe Indictment. 

### ·In this case, the statutory and regulatory schemes forming thebasis ofCounts 1, 2, and 3 ofthe Indictment clearly provide

# an exception for the smokelesspowder for small
arms, both through their**pl~n** meaning, their legislative histo.ry, andthe rule of inpari materia. For thesereasons, the Court should dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 3 ofthe Indictment: II. THJS COURT SHOULD DISMISS COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE :BECAUSE 49 U.S.C. § 46505(B)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 844(G)(l) AND 49U.S.C. § 46312 FAIL TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE CONDUCT PROHIBITED. Due process requires that parties receive fair notice before the Government deprives them ofliberty or property. 

### See Mullane v. Central HanoverBank & 'l:rus! 

### Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 902/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 43 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 26



### RebeccaHyde Skordas (#6409) SKORDAS, CASTON & 

### HYDE, LLC 341 So. Main 

### Street, Suite 303. 

### Salt Lake 

### City, 

### UT 841 1 1 Telephone: (801) 53)-7444 Facsimile: (801) 531-8885 

### Attorney for the Defendant
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, 

### CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. JOSEPH PETER MOESSER, Defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 

### No. 2:09-CR-00842 Judge Ted Stewart

The 

### Defendant, Joseph Peter Moesser, by and 

### through his 

### attorney ofrecord, 

### Rebecca Hyde 

### Skordas, hereby submits this memorandum of

### law in support ofhis motion
to 

### dismiss the 

### Superseding Indictment. FACTS 

### Mr. Moesser is an internationaJJy-recognized big gawe hunter, having tllken 34 

### record-book animals. He 

### has traveled worldwide to 

### hunt, including 

### traveling four times
to 

### Africa, five times to 

### Argentina as well as to Mongolia, China, Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia and numerous states within the UnitedStates. He is also a board member and past president ofthe Utah Chapter ofthe Safari Club International. lv{r_ 

### Moesserhad planned a :muzzleloader hunting trip to Africa on October 1; 2009. To shoot a muzzleloadcr rifle, a hunter first loads a primer and apropellant into

2 PAGE 29/47

! I r 

# I i02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 43 Filed 08/10/10 Page 13 of 26

the Indictment should be dismissed. d, Count 4 ofthe SupersedingIndictment should be dismissed because 49 C.F.R §175.10(a)(8) creates an exceptionto tbe pacbging, Description,Marking and Labeling requirements of49 C.F.R 

### § 17l· 185 which fl)rm the basis ofCount 4. Count4 ofthe Superseding lndictrit.ent should be dismissed because 49 C.F:R. §

. 175.1O(a)(S) cremes an cx.ccption to the packaging, description, marking and labeling requirements Of49 C.F.R.**§~** 171"185 which form the basis ofCount4. The Government 

### alleges that Mr. Moesser violatednumerous regulations relating to packaging and labeling hazardous material when he removed the primers from their commercial packaging, placed them in shotgun shells 

### and loaded into 

### his checkedbaggage.

· The regulations the Governmentcites in Col!Dt 4 mirror Count 3: 49 C.F.R. 

### § 172.101, § l12.200etseq, 

### § 172.300etseq., § 172AOOetseq., § 173.62,§ 175.l(b)(2) and § 175.3. 

### By failing to comply with these regulations and placing the primers in shotgun shells, the Govemmcnt asserts that

### Mr. Moesser violated 49 U.S.C. 

### §5124 au.d § Sl04(b) by unlawfu.Jly tampering w.ith the packaging ofthe primers. 

### However, Count 4 of' the Superseding Indictment shouldbe dismissed 

### for the

same reasons as Count 3: 4'! C.F.R. § 175.10(a)(8) creates an exception to all ofthe requirements of49 C.F.R.**§~** 171-185 

### for "small arms ammuriitionfor personal use carried by a ... passenger itj dwckcd baggage only, ifsecurely packed 

### in box.es or other packaging specifically 

### designed l<t carry small amounts ofamro.unition." As mentioned above, primers (\l"e ammunition within the meanJng of§175.10(a)(8). Supra Section l(b). None of Ihe regulations the Government cites apply to this case,

. because the reqtlireml!nts for .labeling,**pack~ging** <md shipping hazardous materials foWld

in subpart C (49 C.P.R. §§ 171-1**~5).** The facts as the Government alleges do not

14 PAGE**3~/47**



## 1:02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7
Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 43 Filed 08/10/10 Page 14 of 26

constitute a violation ofthe law, and Count 4 ofthe Superseding Indictment should be dismissed 

### es well. II. IN TilE ALTERNATIVE, TillS COURT SHOULD DISMISS COUNJ:S 1, 2, 3, AND 4 BECAUSETB:E GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO COMl'LYWITH THE DUE PROCESSREQUIREMENT OF NOTICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENSES. Due process requires that individuals receive fair notice before the Government deprives them ofliberty or property. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & 

### Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). In order to provide notice, a statute, regulation or agency interpretation must be "reasonably comprehensible to people ofgood faith". General Elec. Co. v. U11itedStatesE.P.A., 53 F.3d 1324, 1330-1331 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Thedue process clause 

### prevents courts 

### from deferring to 

### an agency interpretation that does not meetthis standard, See United States v. National Dairy Corp., 

### 372 U.S. 29,32-33 (1963) (holdingthat 

### "criminal responsibility should not 

### attach where one could not reasonably understand thathis contemplated conduct is proscribed."); General Elec., Co., 53 F.3d at 1328-29 (noting that "[i]nthe absence ofnotice-for example,**wher~** the regulation is not sufficiently clearto warn a party about whatis expected ofit-an agency may not deprive

a

### party ofproperty by imposing civil or criminal**liability.'~;** 

### Gates & 

### Fo:x Co. v, 

### OSHRC, 790 F.2d 1 54, 156 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (holding that the due process clause**~prevents** ... deference from validating the application ofa regulation that fails to give fair warning of the conduct it prohibits orrequires"). There are three aspects ofthe fair warning requirement: (1) the vagueness doctrine; (2) the ban against novel construction ofa criminal statute to conduct thatneitherthe
statute nor

# any prior

### judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope; and (3) the rule oflenity. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259,266 (1997). In each ofthese

15 PAGE 31/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007**AN1~7** CMJECF -U.S. District Court:utd-Bistory/Docwnents Query

Doc. · No.



### 1 Filed: Entered:. 

### 2:09-cr-00842-TS All Defendants USA

### v. Moesser Date filed: 11105/2009 Date terminated: 04/20/2011 Date oflast filing: 09/23/2011 

## Documents
Dates Description 11/04/2009 \:) Indictment 11/05/2009 2, Filed & Entered: · 11/05/2009**~:.** Sunnnons Issued 

### l Filed: 11/05/2009 (}· Summons Returned Executed Entered:

. 11110/2009 4 Filed & Entered: ll/19/2009 

### ..:.l Notice ofAttorney Appearance- Defendant 

### 2 Filed & Entered: 11/19/2009**~}** Notice ·ofAttomey Appearance- Defendant Q Filed & Entered: 11/23/2009**\~** Statew.ent ofDiscovery Policy 7 Filed & Entered: 11/23/2009 

### ll· Certificate ofCompliance lQ Filed & Entered: 12/04/2009**~l** Arraigwnent 

### li Filed & En.tered: 12/04/2009 

### \l Order Setting Conditions ofRelease 13 Filed & Entered: 12/28/2009 

### -,l Certi.ficatc ofCompliance 

### ll Filed & Entered: 01/14/2010 .,:) Motion to Continue Terminated: 01115/2010 15 Filed & Entered: 01/15/2010**-.~** Certificate ofCompliance lQ Filed: 01/15/2010 

### il Order to Co.ntinne

- EJ:Jds ofJustice Entered: 01/19/2010 

### 11 Filed & Entered: 02/04/2010 \l Motion to Travel Terminated: 02/17/2010 1§. Filed & Entered: 02/{)5/2010 (I Response to Motion 20 Filed & Entered: 02/17/2010**~~·** Order on Motion to Travel 

### 22 Filed & Entered: 03/04/2010 i.) Trial Order 23 Filed & Entered: 03/09/2010 ;,J Notice ofAttorney Appearance- USA 25 Filed & Entered: 05/04/2010 

### \;J, Motion for Admissi,on ProHacVice TermiMted: 07/30/2010 26 Filed & Entered: 05/05/2010 \J Motion for Protective Order Terminated: 05/06/2010

. 

### 27 Filed & Entered: 05/06/2010 

### \l Order on Motion for Protective Order 28 Filed & Entered: 05/07/2010 ()Motion for Leave. to File Terminated· 05/J2/2010 30 Filed & Entered:
. 05/12/2010**~)** Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Information Terminated: 12/16/2010 31 Filed & Entered: 05/12/2010 

### Q MEMORANDUM in Support

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?421699478286867-L _1_ 0-1 PAGE 32/47 Page 1of3



## Exhibit 7 1125/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 33/47 

### CM/ECF- U.S. District Court:utd-History/Documents Query Page 2 of3

32 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2010 

## u Motion for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply Terminated: 05/26/2010 33 F'iled & Entered: 05/25/2010 

### l<l· Cet1ificate ofCompliance 34 Filed & Entered: 05/26/2010 

### \} Ordex au Motion for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply 35 Filed & Entered: 06/15/2010 

### i.l Certificate ofCompliance 36 Filed: 06/30/2010 

### \)• Indictment Entered: 07/01/2010 

### 37 Filed & Entered: 07/01/2010 Q 

### Swnmons Issued 38 Filed & Entered: 07/15/2010**C~·** 

### Motion for Extension ofTime Terminated: 09/08/2010 

### l2. Filed: 07116/2010 

### \,) Summons Returned Executed Entered:

. 07/19/2010 41 Filed & Entered: 07/30/2010 

### \;J· Order on Motion for Admi.ssiou Pro Hac Vice 42 Filed & Entered: 08/10/20!0 

### ,]Motion. to Dismiss Terminated: 04/20/2011 43 Filed & Entered: 08/10/2010**~.)·** 

### MEMORANDUM in Support 44 Filed & Entered: 08/23/:!010 

### \J 

### Respo!J.se to Motion. 45 Filed & Entered: 08/23/2010 

### ') Motion for Leave to File Terminated: 08/25/2010 46 Filed & Entered." 08/25/2010**~)** 

### Order on Motion for Leave to File 

### .±1 Filed & Entered: 08/27/2010 

### \,) Motion to file Ami.cus Brief Terminated: 09/09/2010 48 · Filed & Entered: 08/27/2010 

### \:tMEMORANDUM in Support**~** Filed & Entered: 08/Z7/20l0 

### ') Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice Terminated: 08/30/2010 50 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 

### <.l Order on Motion. for Admission. Pro Hac Vice 

### 11 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 

### \lNotice (Other) 

## 52 Filed & Entered: 08/31/2010 

### \J Motion to Travel Terminated: 09/03/2010 54 Filed & Entered: 09/02/2010 

### \JResponse to Motion 56 Filed & Entered: 09/03/2010 

### \)MEMORANDUM in 

### Opposition 58 Filed & Entered: 09/08/2010 

## u Order on Motion for Extension ofTime 

### 2.2 Filed & Entered: 09/08/2010 

### IJ· Motion. for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply Terminated: 09/09/2010 

### .2Q Filed & Entered: 09/09/2010 \l 

### Order on Motion for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply 62 Filed & Entered: 09/17/2010**~l** 

### Reply to Response 63 Filed & Enlered: 09/2!/2010**~l** 

### Brief 65 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010**~J** 

### Brief .§£ Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 

### (} MEMORANDVM in Support 68 Filed & Entered: 11/19/2010 (t 

### Ordex on Motion. to Dismiss

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.govI 

### cgi-bin/.HistDocQry.pi?4216994

### 7 82868

### 67-

### L**~**

### l_ 0-1 1/25/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 34/47 CM/ECF ·U.S. District Court:utd-History/Documents Query Page 3 of3

71 Filed & Entered: 121!5/2010**C~** Order to Continue •**Er~ds** ofJustice 73 Filed & Entered: 03/28/2011 

### -.l Motion to Continue Terminated: 03/29/2011 74 Filed & Entered: 03/29/2011 

### -.l Orderon Motion to Continue 75 Filed & Entered.· 03/29/2011 

### \3 Motionto Continue Terminated: 03/30/2011 77 Filed & Entered: 03/30/2011 

### iJ Order to Continue -Ends ofJustice**~** Filed: 04/13/2011 

### i,J Information • Petty Entered: 04/14/2011 

### .ill Filed & Emered: 04/15/2011 

### ;;) Notice ofFiling Dismissal**~** Filed & Entered: 04/15/2011 \) Statement

### i11 Advance ofPlea 

### 85 Filed & Entered: 04/20/2011**~j** Judgment 

### 86 Filed & Entered: 04/25/2011 

## •lOrder 

## E1 Filed:. 09/23/2011**\.~Order** Entered: 09/28/2011
'" ,., . ·-· ········-· ····-···· -·--···· .......... 

### -

. . . ·- , __ ............- "" ' .......... . . -· '• -···· 

## I PACER Service Center 

## I I Transaction**Recei~t** 

## I 

## I 0l/25/2012 .11 :47:14 

## I 

# I PACER Login: 

# llus3305 \\cnont Code: 

# I .IDescription: 

## IHistory!Documents Search**~~~:09-cr-00842-** Criteria: 

### TS \Billable Pages: \2 

### \cost: \\0.16 

## I

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin!HistDocQry.pl?421699478286867•L _1_ 0·l 1/25/201202/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 35/47

C,ase 2:09"cr"00842-TS 

### Document 1 Filed 11/04/2009 Page 1 of 4



### FILED 

### tJ.S. DiSHdCT COURT BRETT

### L. TOLMAN, United States Attorney (#8821) 

### lUllliJlOV 

### -Li 

## p 4: 3l MICHAEL P. KENNEDY, Assistant United States Attorney (#8'1YJ) · 

### Attorneys for the United States ofAmerica iJJciRICT 

### CF U'fAH 

### 185 South StateStreet, Ste, 300 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84 I 11**~rY.'~---** 

### Telephone: (801) 524-5682 • Facsimile: (801) 325-3387

. n:PUTY CLERK 

### ·e-mail: michael.kennedy@usdoj.gov

IN 

### Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION


### UNITED STATES OF 

### AMERlCA, Plaintiff, 

## vs. JOSEPH PETER MOESSER, Defendant. 

### INDICTMENT VIO. 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46505(b)(3) (Attempted Placement of Explosive on Aircraft) 18 

## u.s.c. § 844(g)(l) (Possession ofExplosive at Airport) 49

## u.s.c. § 46312 (Unlawful Transportation of Har.ardous Materi.al in Air Commerce) 18 U.S.C. 

### § 1001 (False Statement) 

# -------------------=:-=-=-=-c:::-=====-==- ..... ·- .... The Grand Jury 

### charges: Case: 2:09-cr-00842 1\:s:si;r>ed ";ro : Stewart, Ted Assign. Date : ll/0412009 Description: USJ\ v**(Indi~tm~nt)** 

## Exhibit 802/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 35/47



### Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Documer.t ·, F1ied 

### 11104/2009 Page 2 of 4



### COUNT 1 On 

### or about October I; 2009, in the Central Division ofthe 

### District ofUtah, JOSEPH PETER MOESSER, the

### Defendantherein, knowingly attempted to place, and attempted to have placed,.

an explosive,.to wit, inorganic nitrate-based explosive smokeless powder 

### for 

## small

arms (commonly referred to as blackpowder) on an aircraft in a.nd intended for operation in air transportation, to wit, Delta

### Airlines Flight Number 1512, service from Salt Lake 

### City, Utah to 

### Atiauta, Georgia, and Delta AirlinesF!ightNumber 0200, 

### service from Atlanta, Georgia, to 

### Johannes):JUrg, South 

### Africa, all in violation ofand punishable under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46505(b)(3).

COUNT2 On or about October l, 2009, in the Central Division ofthe DistrictofUtah, JOSEPH 

## PETER MOESSER, the Defendantherein, knowingly possessed an explosive within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 

### 8440), to wit, inorganic nitrate-based explosive smokeless powder for ·small a.nns (commonly referred to as black powder), in Salt Lake International Airport, an airportthat is subJect to the regulatory authority of the Federal
-2-02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 37/47

Case 2:09-cr-00842-TS Document 1 Filed 11/04/2009 Page 3 of 4



### Aviation Administration, all in violation ofand punishable under 18 U.S.C. 

### § 844(g)(l).
COUNT3 On or about October 1, 2009, in the Central Division ofthe District ofUtah, JOSEPH PETERMOESSER, the Defendantherein, in violation ofa regulation or requirement related to the transportation ofhazardous materil:\1 prescribed 

## by the Secretary ofTransportation tmder 

### 49C.F.R. 

### §§ 171.2(e), 173.27(b)(l), and 

### 175.3, did willfully 

### deliver, and

cause to be delivered, property containing hazardous rnatedal, to wit, inorganic nitrate-based explosive smokeless powder for small arms (commonly referred to as black powder), to an air carrier far transporta:tion in air commerce, alt 

### in violation ofand punishable under 49 U.S.C. §46312. 

### QQlJNT4 

## On or about October .I, 

### 2009, 

## in the Central Division ofthe District ofUtah, JOSEPH PETERMOESSER, the Defendant herein, in a matter within thejwisdi.ction ofthe executive branch of the United States government, to wit, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBl), -3-02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 38/47

Case 2;09--cr-00842-TS Document 1 Filed I 

### i i04i2009 Page 4 of 4



### United States Department ofJustice, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department ofTransportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United States Department ofTransportation; 

### did knowingly and 

### willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement 

### and representation, in that he, inan interview with Special Agents ofthe FB! an.d FAA, did state that he did not have undeclared black 

### powder or 

### othe.r prohibited 

### hazardous materials concealed

### in his baggage intended for airline transport as checked baggage, which statement was false as he well knew; all in violation ofTitle 18 U.S.C. §I00l(a)(2) and punishable thereunder.

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY


### ITL. TOLMAN

# i~il]llLQ MICHAEL P. KENNEDY Assistant United Statvs Attorney02/14/2012 15:14 4252271007

U.S. Department of Transportation 

### Research and Special 

### Programs Administration ANM7

The US .Department ofTransportation Competent Authority for lhe United States
CLASSIFICATION OFEXPLOSIVES 400 Se'-'enlh Srr-Mt, s.w**WS3hi/'I~MI,** D.C.**~0500**

Based upon a request by Ammuni.tion Accessories Inc, CCI"Speer Operations (formerly 

### Federal Cartridge Company), P.O. Box 856, 2299 Snake River Avenue, Lewiston, ID, the following items are classed in accordance with Section 173.56, Title 49, Code ofFederal Regulations, (49 CFR). A copy ofyour application, all supporting documentation and a copy ofthis approval mustbe retained andmade available to DOT upon request.
U.N. PROPERSHIPPlNG NAME AND NUMBER: Charges, shaped, [without detonator], UN0440 U.N. CLASSIFICATION CODE: 1.40 REFERENCE NUMBER EXl995080018C PRODUCT DESIGNATION/PAR! NUMBER Primer No. 250, Large Rifle, Magnum

. U.N. PROPERSIDPPING NAME AND NUMBER:

Primers, cap type, UN0044 U.N. CLASSIFICATION CODE: !.4S REFERENCENUM:SER EX1990030255 EXI995110l31J EX1990030256 EXI990030254 EX1990030257 EX19951l0131I EXI990030258 EX1995080018B PRODUCT .OESIGNATJON!PART NUMBER #200 

### Large Rifle

. PrimerNo. 200, Large Rifle #250 Large Rifle Magnum #200 

### Large Rifle CenterfuePrimer BR-2 Large 

### Rifle Benchrest Primer, BR-2, Large Rifle Bench Rest 

### M-34 Large Rifle Military Primer 

### No. 34, Large Rifle, Military PAGE 39/47

Tracking No: 2003070001 Page I of5 

## Exhibit 902/14/2012 15:14 4252271007

EX1990030259 EX19951l0131H EXI990030260 EX1995080018E EX!990030261 EX1995Il013!G EX!990030262 EX1995080018D EX1990030263 EX1995110131F EX1990030264 EXI995080018A EX1995!10l31B EXI990030265 EX19951 10131C EX!990030266 EX1995Il0!3lE EX1990030267 EX199501!001& EXJ989!20167 EX1995! 1013IA EXI989120168 EXI995110!3I
Tracking No: 2003070001 ANH7

#300 Large Pistol Primer No. 300, Large Pistol #350 Large Pistol Magnum Primer No. 350, Large Pistol, Magmun #400 Small Rifle 

### Primer No. 400, Small Rifle #450 Small 

### Rifle Magnum Primer 

### No. 450, Small Rifle, Magnum BR-4 Small Rifle Benchrest Primer

### BR-4, Small Rifle, Bench Rest #41 Small Rifle Military Primer

### No. 41, Small Rifle, Military Primer

### No. 5000EM #500 Small Pistol

. Primer 

### No. 500, Small Pistol. #550 Small Pistol Magimm Primer

### No. 550, Small Pistol, Magnum 

### #35 50 Cal. BMG Primer

### No. 35 #209 

### Shotshell Primer 

### Primer No. 209, 

### Shotshell #209 M 

### Shotsb.ell Primer 

### Primer No. 209M, Shotshcll PAGE 40/47

Page 2 of502/14/2012. 15:14 4252271007

EX.\9950800 !SF 

### E:X;I993030001 EX1993030002 EX\993030003 EX1993030004 EX1989120144 EXI995080019 EX1996110053 EXI996110053A ANM7

Primer No. 209 S.C. Primers, Percussion, 

### M I 15 (tested) Primer,Percussion, M36A2 Anvil, Primer, Percussion, M\15, MOD A Anvil, Primer, Percussion, Mll5, MOD B Percussion Caps: #ll Caps Primer No. 

### I1, Percussion 

### Cap Percussion Cap. No. 1 I Magnum 

### Primer, Percussion Cap, No. I0 CCI



### U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: Primers, cap type, UN03

### 78 U.N. 

### CLASSIFICATION CODE; !.4B 

### REFERENCE NUMBER EX1997090062 EX 1994080066 EX1994080067 

### EX 1994120072 EX\994120073 EX1994120074 EX1994120075 EX1994J20076 EX1994120077 EX1990030267A
Tracking No: 2003070001 

### PRODUCT l>ESIGNATIQNJ!'AR! NUMBER 

### Musket Cap, Six Wing 300BCF Berdan Clean Fire Primers M34 Clean Fire Primers 

### 300CF Large Pistol Clean Fire 41 

### CF Small Rifle Military SOOCF Small Pistol Clean Fire 82CF Small Pistol Clean Fire SOOBCF Berdan Clean Fire 550BCF Berdan Cl.ean 

### Fire No. 82 Small Pistol Primer
Page 3 of5 PAGE 41/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7

U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: 

### Primers, cap type, UN0044 U.N. CLASSIFICATIONCODE: 1.48 REFERENCE NUMBER 

### EX 

### 1995110131D 

### EX1995120110 PRODUCT DESIGNATION/PART NUMBER 

### Primer No. 82, Small Pistol Primer, 500LF, Small Pistol, Lead Free U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: 

### Primers, cap type, UN0378 U.N. CLASSIFICATION CODE: 1.4B REFERENCE NUMBER 

### EX1985110030 PRODUCT DESJGNATION/PART NUMBER 

### Cascade Primers U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: 

### Primers, cap type, UN0044 U.N. CLASSIFICATION CODE: 1.48 REFERENCE NUMBER 

### EX1995!20l 

### U EX1995120111A
EX1995120111B EX19951201ll C EX1995120111D
EXI995120111E EX1995120!11F
EX1995120ll!G 

### EX! 995120112

Tracking No: 2003070001 PRODUCT DESIGNATION/PART NUMBER 

### Primer No. 200, Large Rifle, in Ulti-Primer Strips · Primer BR-2, Large Rifle Bench Rest, in Ulti·Primer Strips Primer No. 300, Large Pistol, in D!ti-Prirner Strips Primer No. 400, Small Rifle, in Ulti-Primer Strips Primer BRA, Small Rifle, 

### Bench Rest, in Ultri-Primer Strips PrimerNo. 500, 

### Small Pistol, in Ulti-Primer Strips Primer No. 550, Small Pistol,**Magnll1l~,** 

### in Ulti-Primer Strips :Prim.er No. 82, Small Pistol, 

### in Ulti-Primer Strips Primer No. 350, Large Pistol Magnum, in Ulti-Primer Strips
Page 4 of5 PAGE 42/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007

EXl995120112A
EX1995120112B
EX1995120112C
EX1995120112D

DATED: July 16, 2003 Approved by:

# ~~~-**~.,.,** Robert A. McGuire · Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety

Tracking No: 2003070001 ANM7

Primer No. 250, Large Rifle Magnum, in 

### UltH'rimer Strips Primer No. 450, Small Rifle Magnum, in VIti-Primer Strips Pri1,:ner No. 41, Small Rifle, Military, in Ulti-Primer Strips Primer No. 34, Large Rifle, Military, in Ulti-Primer Strips

Page 5 of5 PAGE 43/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 44/47 

# ·eel/ SPEER MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

MANUFACTURED BY: ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE 

### #: EMERGENCY CONTACT: SECTION 1. MANUFACTURER INFORMATION 

### CCI/SPEER 2299 Snake RiverAvenue Lewiston, Idaho 83501 (208) 746-2351 (24 HOURS) Chief Chemist or Safety Department TRANSPORTATION EMERGeNCY CONTACT: CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300 MSDSDATE: 03/01190 REVIEW DATE 10106104 REVISION DATE SECTION 2. PRODUCT INFORMATION 

### PRODUCT NAME: Shotshell**Primer~** 

### 209M SYNONYMS:
FORMULA NA C.A.S.# NA DOT PROPER SHIPPING NAME: Primers, Cap Type 06/13105

UNITED NATIONS (UN) PESJGNAfiON: 0044 HAZARD CLASSIFICATION: 1.4S NFPA: HeALTH: 

# IJJ FLAMMABILITY: 

### [I) REACTIVITY: 

### [QJ SPECIAL: I"'XPLOSIVE HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS CAS NUMBER UE!.!LEL EXPDSURE LIMITS Lead Styphnate • 12403-82-6 NE · .05 mq/m, Barium Nitrate • 10022-31-8 NE .5 mg/m Antimony Sulflde 7440-36-0 NE .5 mg/m' Aluminum 7429-90-5 NE 15 mg/m Tetrncene 109-27-3 NE NE Copper (Primer Cup/Battery Cup 7440-50-8 NE 1 mglm, Components)' Nickel(Riatina components) 7440-02-2 NE 1 mg/m, Zinc (as Zinc Oxide) 1314-13-2 NE .2 molm, Zinc Compounds (Primer Cup 7440-66-6 NE 5 mg!m" (ACGIH) Component)' NA"' NOT AVAILABLE NE =NOT ESTABLISHED MGIM3 =MILLIGRAMS PER CUBIC METER OFAIR PPM= PARTS PER MILLION REFERENCE OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1000 TABLE Z-1 (") INDICATES TOXIC CHEMJCAL(S) SUBJECT TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 313 Of THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT (SARA) OF 1986 AND 40 CFR 372. (+) CERTAIN COMPONENTS LISTED IN THE INGREDIENTS SECTION INCLUDE CASE MATERIAL, PROJECTILE OR OTHER INERT COMPONENTS AND ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE AN EXPOSURE HAZARD UNDER 

## Exhibit 1002/14/2012 15:14 4252271007

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

### Research and Special Programs 

### Administration ANM7

The US Dcpsrtment ofTr-anspartation Competent**Aut~ority** fur**t~e** United States
CLASSIFICATWN OFEXPLOSIVES <lOO S!VI!!nth Street, S.W.**_w~;~~h]ngl.on,** C.C. :2(]590

Based upon a request by Hodgdon Powder Company, Inc., 6231 Robinson, Shawnee Mission, 

### KS, th.:: following items are classed in accordance 

### with Section 173.56, 

### Title 49, Code ofFederal Regulations, (49 CFR). A copy ofyour application, all suppocting documentation and a copy ofthis approval must beretained and made available to DOT upon request U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: Propellant, solid, 

### UN0499 U.N. CLASSIFICATION CODE: 

### L3C. REFERENCENUMBER EX2002100

### l05 PRODUCT DESIGNATIO

### NIPART NUMBER Triple Seven Pellets 

### NOTES: None. U.N. PROPER SHIPPING NAME AND NUMBER: Smokeless 

### powde:r for small arms [1 00 pounds or less], NA3178 

### !I:N, CLASSIFICATION CODE: 4.1 REFERENCE NUMBER EX2002100192 PRODUCT DESlGNATIQNIPART NUMBER Triple 

### Seven Pellets NOTES: 

### This classification is limited to shipments 

### ofI00 

### pmmds or less ofSmokeless powder for smaJJ arms as 

### authorized in49 

### C.FR Section 173.171. The following packagi:ng 

### methods are approved: Packaging Method A: InnerPackaging " Ammunition boxes, plasticwithinner partitions, each containing not more than eight {8) pellets percell and notmore than four huncl!ed ( 400) pellets or 260 grams net explosive weight per package. Outer Packaging- Specification 4G fiberboard box, each containing not .more thlm twelve (12) innerpackagings. PackagingMethod B: Tracking No: 2002100107 Page 1 of2 

## Exhibit 11 PAGE 45/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7

CONTINUINGNOTE- EX2002100192: Inner Packaging

- 

### Tubes, plastic with plastic end caps secmely affixed, eachcontaining notmore thantwenty-five (25) pellets or !6,2 grams net '<'Xplosive weight IntermediatePackaging- "Blisterpackage", plastic, each captaining notmore thari four (4) inner packagings.

_ Outer Packaging · 

### Specification 40 fiberboard 

### box, eachcontaining not 

### more than twenty-four (24) intennediate packagings.



### DATED: October 25, 2002 Approved by;

# --~~~**~.,.** Robert A McG-u.ire**As~ociate** Administrator

### for _Hazardous Materials Safety

TrackingNo: 2002100107 Page 2 of2 PAGE 45/4702/14/2012 15:14 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 47/47

·-...•..**·~** 

# r irl.l· 

## u ';'



# l 

# HODGDON@ THE BRAND THi\T'S TRUE 

## WhichUNNmnbe.rs Da I Use ForHodgdonPowders?
For UPS and FedEx shipping as a flammable solid (100 pounds or less), Hodgdon smokeless, Pyrodex® and Triple 

### Seven all have the sarm:!shipping 

### infonnation. For large. 1.3C Explosi.ve shipments, smokeless 

### powrur varies from Pyrodex and Triple Seven. The shippinginformation follows:

# i PowderType 

## Proper Hazard Shipping Class or Name 

## Division Flammable Solid 1Smokeless 

### 4.1 shipments ofHodgdon :powder 

### smokelesS, Pyrode:;;,:® 1 

### for small

### ~1'1:\P.!~**Se~----** anns 

### Hodgdon Smokeless 

### Powdei. lJC

· (!.3C Explosive)

...... 

### _§.lllokeless

.. •...**~·~f'yrode;;:®** 

### or TripJe

. ' PropeUant, l l,3C


### ·.**,.Sey~::P.Jl**

### ..**~,c** 

### .Exoiosiv:e) solid · 

## i · Identification · Numbers NA3178



### UN 0161 UN0499 

## racking

# I Group 1 I

.. . ' i ' 

### :PO I I 

# I I 

# I 

# .ron I 

# I f'G II I • 

## \**~** 

### Powder shipmentsshou1d only be mnde bypersons 

### who have had**I:~OT** 

### training and 

### comply wit11 

### all DOT regulations set 

### forth in Title 49 ofthe Code ofFedera1 Regulations. 1



### I

### ~ .G,-.If·<.rtfz1f;'·**~~·-·** .. t12..il RotJhti;On •P.O. Dc'l:t #29.3·l**~ Sba~·nee**  Mission,**~m.u** 6€i2Q1 l (9L3)**~52-9455** Vo/.co • (913) 362-1301**Yo.~**


### '7'

.. 

# y Exhibit 12