2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-22-2006 

# U SA v . Z wib el P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2027

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Z wibe l " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1072. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1072NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2027 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RA YM ON D ZW I BEL, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 03- 247) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er S u b mi tt e d P u r s u a n tt o T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2006 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d A C K E R M A N ,* D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: M ay22, 2006 )

____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ *T he H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge of the D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. B efor e us i s R aym ond Z w i bel ’ s appea l fr om hi s j uryconvi ct i on forbei ng a c o n v icte d f

e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). In h is a p p e a l, Z w ib e l tak e s th e p o sitio n th a t (1 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on; ( 2) t he j ur yw as notpr oper l yi ns t ruct ed on the i s s ue of c ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on o f a f ir e a rm ; a n d , (3 ) 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) i s u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n its f a c e a n d a s a p p lie d . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d w ill a f f ir m . I . B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ou r anal y si s and co nst rue them i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the gov ernm ent, as w e m ust f o llo w in g th e ju ry' s g u ilty v e rd ic t. G la s s e r v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 1 5 U .S . 6 0 , 8 0 (1 9 4 2 ). A tt he t i m e of the r el evantevent s , Z w i bel w as s ervi ng the t erm s of a pr obat i on ar i s i ng outof pr i ors t at e courtfel onyconvi ct i ons . Som et i m e bef or e February , 2003, Z w ib e l a n d h is g ir lf

ri e n d m o v e d in to th e h o m e o f B e rn a d e tte C o n w a y , Z w ib e l’ s m o th e r. Af t e rZ wi b e l h a d mo v e d i n t o Co n wa y ’ s h o me , De l r i c e Br i s t o – Z wi b e l ’ s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w – v i s i t e d Z wi b e l i n F e b ru a r y , 2 0 0 3 . Du r i n g th a tv i s i t , Br i s t o a n d Z wi b e l e x a mi n e d two g u n s w h ic h B ri s to w ra p p e d in a b la n k e t a n d p la c e d in a n ig h t s ta n d in Z w ib e l’ s b e d ro o m . O n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 3 , p ro b a tio n o f f ice rs in f o rm e d Z w ib e l th a t th e yw e re e n ro u te to C onw ay ’ s hom e t o conductan i ns pect i on. W hen the pr obat i on offi cer s arr i ved, they i den t i fi ed them sel ves and satdo w n w i t h Z w i bel i n the ki t chen area of t he h ou se t o d i scuss3

t he rul es of Zw i bel ’ s pr obat i on, one of w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed Zw i bel fr om pos s es s i ng any fi r earm s . A tone poi nti n t he meet i ng, Z w i bel “abrupt l ygotup fr om the ki t chen t abl e and w a lk e d b a c k in to h is h o u s e ,” b u t r e tu rn e d le s s th a n o n e m in u te la te r. A p p . 1 1 2 . Z w i bel t hen br oughtt he off i cer s i nt o t he bedr oom , w her eupon the off i cer s as ked Z w i bel w hethert her e w er e anyfi r earm s orot herw eapons i n t he bedr oom . G l anci ng at one of the ni ghts t ands i n t he bedr oom , Z w i bel r es ponded thathi s br other - i n- l aw m i ght have l eftfi r earm s i n t he bedr oom . A ppear i ng nervous , Z w i bel then w al ked t o a dr es s erat t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e o f

t h e r o o m a n d t o l d th e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s th a t“ i f

th e r e a r e a n yf

i r e a r ms i n t hi s r oom , t heyw oul d be behi nd thi s dr es s er . ” A pp. 115. Z w i bel then “w al ked t o t hat dr es s er , r etr i eved a r ol l of l i nol eum from behi nd the dr es s er , l ooked bac k t her e aga i n, and s ai d no, t her e’ s no fi r earm s back ther e. ” A pp. 115. Z w i bel then t ol d t he off i cer s , “[i ] f the fi r earm s w er e ther e, t heyw oul d be behi nd thi s dr es s er , and theyw oul dn’ tbe i n anyother ar ea of t he hous e. ” A pp. 115. O bs ervi ng t hatZ w i bel appea r ed nervous , one of the off i cer s appr oache d t he ni ght sta n d to w a rd w h ich Z w ib e l h a d g lan c e d w h e n a sk e d w h e th e r a n yf ire a rm s w e re p re se n t in t he hous e. T he off

i cert hen opene d a compar t m entatthe bot t om of the ni ghts t and and found the r ol l ed- up s heetcont ai ni ng the tw o guns . T he off i cert es t i fi ed thati tappea r ed th e g u n s h a d b e e n “ q u ic k ly ro lle d , n o t n e a t, b u t s tu f f e d in to th e n ig h ts ta n d .” A p p . 1 1 7 . Z w i bel t ol d t he off

i cert hatB r i s t o had l eftthe guns and he ha d t houghtthe guns w er e no lo n g e r t h e re .A l t hough t w o guns w er e r ecove r ed fr om the ni ght s t and i n Z w i bel ’ s bedr oom , one 1 of the tw o w eapons m ayhave be en an “ ant i que” a s defi ned i n 18 U . S . C . § 921( a) ( 3) and coul d nots erve as a pr edi cat e for a char ge under18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T hus , Z w i bel w as o n ly ch a rg e d w ith p o s s e s s io n o f th e g u n th a t w a s n o t a n a n tiq u e .

4 O n O ct ober7, 2003, Z w i bel w as i ndi ct ed bya gr and j uryi n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a forvi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . A j uryfound Zw i bel gui l t yand 1 Z w i bel w as t hen s ent ence d t o 70 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I . A . Z w ib e l ra ise s tw o c h a llen g e s to th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is con vict i on . F i rs t , he argu es the g ov ernm ent fai l ed to prove the gu n at i ssue i n thi s case w as a “f i r earm ” as defi ned under18 U . S. C . § 921( a) ( 3) . Second, he ar gues the governm entfai l ed t o pr offe rs uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j urycoul d concl ude he c o n s tru c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e d th e g u n a t is s u e .

“ O u r re v iew o f

th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e a f

ter a c o n v ictio n is ‘h ig h ly d e f e r e n t i a l . ’ ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H a r t , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, w hi l e w e have pl enarypow ert o det erm i ne, aft erdr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the g o v ern m en t, w h ethe r th e e v iden ce w o u ld allow a ra ti o n al j u ry t o convi ct , i d. , t he j ur y ’ s ver di ctm us tbe uphel d i f “a nyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have found the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed St at es v. V oi gt , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T hi s i s a “he avybur den” f orZ w i bel . U ni t edT o t he ext entt hatZ w i bel ar gues t he gover nm ent w as obl i gat ed t o demonstr at e that 2 t he gun w as oper abl e t o es t abl i s h i t w as a “f i r earm ” under18 U . S. C . § 921( a) ( 3) , a w eapon need not be oper abl e t o be cons i der ed a “ fi r earm ” under§ 921( a) ( 3) . See U ni t ed St at es v. R ivera , 4 1 5 F . 3 d 2 8 4 , 2 8 6 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (W alke r, C . J. ) (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). 5 S ta te s v . G o n z a le z , 9 1 8 F .2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). 1 . U n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 1 (a )(3 ), “f ire a rm ” is d e f

in e d a s “ a n yw e a p o n . . . w h ich w ill ori s des i gned t o orm ayr eadi l ybe conve r t ed t o expel a pr oj ect i l e bythe r eac t i on of an e x p lo siv e .” R e ly in g o n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f ire a rm s e x p e rt’s te stim o n yf a ilu re to per s onal l yi ns pectt he gun ati s s ue, Z w i bel ar gues thatthe governm entdi d notpr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he gun w as des i gned t o orcoul d expel a pr oj ect i l e byt he re a c tio n o f

a n e x p lo s iv e a n d th a t h is c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld th e re f o re b e v a c a te d . W e di s agr ee. W hi l e Zw i bel i s corr ectthatthe governm entexpertdi d not per s onal l yi ns pectt he gun i n ques t i on, the expe r tt es t i fi ed thathe di d notdo s o beca us e he r el i ed on i nform at i on pr ovi ded t o hi m byanotheragentw ho had per s onal l yi ns pect ed the fi r earm s . Fur t herm or e, t he gun ati s s ue w as i dent i fi ed as a Fi r earm I nt ernat i onal R egent

. 22 -cal i ber r evo l ver for w hich am m un i t i on w as r eadil yavail able. In l i gh tof the agen t s’ i dent i fi cat i on of the gun’ s m anufa ctur erand the gun’ s cal i ber , and the fa ctthat amm uni t i on fort he gun w as r eadi l yavai l abl e, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatther e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d concl ude thatthe gun w as a “f i r earm ” w i t hi n t he m eani ng of 18 U . S. C . § 921( a) ( 3) . See U ni t ed St at es v. C as t i l l o, 924 F. 2d 1227, 1230 26

(2d C i r. 19 91 ) ( evidence suf fi ci ent t o p rove gu n w as “fi rearm ” w here w i t ness w as a pol i ce of fi cerw ho had “e xt ens i ve tr ai ni ng and fa m i l i ar i tyi n t he i dent i fi cat i on and us e of fi r earm s ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R ouco, 765 F. 2d 983, 996 ( 5th C i r . 1985) ( r ej ect i ng s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence chal l enge t o fi r earm convi ct i on w her e Fl or i da s t atut e ati s s ue defi ned “f

i r earm ” as “anyw eapon ( i ncl udi ng a s t art ergun) w hi ch w i l l , i s des i gned t o, or m ayr eadi l ybe conve r t ed t o expel a pr oj ect i l e bythe ac t i on of an e xpl os i ve, ” and governm entpr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om agentfami l i arw i t h handguns r egar di ng the w e a p o n ’s c a lib e r) . 2 . Z w i bel nextar gues t hatbeca us e he di d notpl ace the fi r earm ati s s ue i n t he ni ght s t and and ther e w as no t es t i m onyt hathe eve rt ouched the fi r earm , ther e w as i ns uffi ci ent e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e ju ry’s c o n c lu s io n th a t h e c o n s tru c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e d th e f ir e a rm . T o es t abl i s h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, the governm entm us ts ubm i ts uffi ci ent evi dence t o s uppor tt he i nfer ence t hatthe i ndi vi dual “know i ngl yhas both t he pow erand th e in ten tio n a t a g iv e n tim e to e x e rc ise d o m in io n o r c o n tro l o v e r a th in g , eith e r d ire c tly o r th ro u g h a n o th e r p e rso n o r p e rso n s. C o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n n e c e ss a rilyre q u ire s b o th

‘ dom i ni on and contr ol ’ overan obj ectand know l edge of thatobj ect ’ s exi s t ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. I afe l i ce, 978 F. 2d 92, 96 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . “M er e pr oxi m i t yt o [contr aband] or m er e pr es ence on t he pr oper t yw her e i ti s l ocat ed orm er e as s oci at i on w i t h t he per s on w ho d o e s c o n tr o l th e [ c o n tr a b a n d ] o r t h e p ro p e rt y ,” d o e s n o t e s ta b lis h c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n .W e n o te th a t Z w ib e l to ld a p ro b a tio n o f f ice r th a t h e a llo w e d th e g u n s to re m a in in h is 3 bedr oom “bec aus e I haven’ ts een a proba t i on offi cer i n m onths . ” A pp. 199. T hi s s t at ement c o u ld p e rm it an in f

e re n c e th a t Z w ib e l h a d so m e m e a su re o f c o n tro l o v e r th e g u n s in th a t it s ugges t s t hathad Zw i bel know n pr obat i on offi cer s w oul d i ns pecthi s r es i dence , he coul d and w ou l d h ave m ov ed the gu ns, w hich w ou l d in turn be e vidence o f his con t rol ov er the g un s. 7 U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 3 F. 3d 673, 680 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A ccor di ngl y , evi dence thatm ay es t abl i s h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i ncl udes a def endant ’ s at t empt t o hi de ordes t r oy contr aband, ort hatt he def endantl i ed t o pol i ce. U ni t ed St at es v. J enki ns , 90 F. 3d 814, 818 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 436 F. 3d 238, 242 ( D . C . C i r . 2006) ( “A l t hough m er e pr oxi m i t yt o a gun i s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, e v id e n c e o f

s o m e o th e r f

a c to r – in c lu d in g c o n n e c tio n w ith a g u n , p ro o f o f m o tiv e , a ges tur e i m pl y i ng contr ol , evas i ve conduc t , ora s t at ementi ndi cat i ng i nvol vementi n an e n te rp ri s e – c o u p le d w ith p ro x im ity m a ys u f f ic e .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). W hen w e vi ew t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , as w e must , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe j ury ’ s ver di ctw as s uppor t ed by s uffi ci entevi dence . Z w i bel i s corr ecti n ar gui ng thathi s pr oxi m i t yt o and know l edge of t he gun ar e notbyt hemsel ves s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta det erm i nat i on of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. B r ow n, 3 F. 3d at680. H ow ever , the evi dence i n t hi s cas e goes bey ond p ro v in g m e re ly th a t Z w ib e l w a s a w a re o f th e p re s e n c e o f

th e g u n s in h is b e d ro o m . T he cruci al evi dence her e i s Z w i bel ’ s i nt er act i on w i t h t he pr obat i on offi cer s dur i ng t he M ar ch, 2003, hom e vi s i tt hatl ed t o t he off i cer s ’ di s coveryof the guns . B efor e that 3 vi s i t , Z w i bel and B r i s t o had di s cus s ed the guns w hi l e i n t he bedr oom , and B r i s t o t es t i fi edW hi l e w e agr ee w i t h Z w i bel t hat our deci s i ons i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B r ow n, 3 F. 3d 673 4 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , and U ni t ed St at es v. J enki ns , 90 F. 3d 814 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , ar e r el evantt o t he iss u e o f c o n stru c tiv e p o s se ss io n , w e f in d th e m d istin g u ish a b le b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n ts in 8 th a t h e h a d w ra p p e d th e g u n s in a b lan k e t an d p lac e d th e m in th e n ig h t sta n d . F ro m th is t est i m on y , a rat i on al j urycou l d infer that Zw i bel knew – b efore t he p robat i on off i cers ’ M ar ch, 2003, hom e vi s i t– t hatt he guns w er e hi dden i n t he ni ghts t and. See I afe l i ce, 978 F. 2d at94 ( obs ervi ng t hatt hi s C our t“pr es um e[s ] thatthe j urypr oper l yeval uat ed cre d ibil ityo f th e w itn esse s, fo u n d the f ac ts, an d d rew rati o n al i n fe ren ce s”). T hatt he j ur ycoul d have pe r m i s s i bl yi nferr ed Zw i bel knew the guns w er e i n t he n ig h t sta n d is c ritica l. W h e n p ro b a tio n o f f ice rs a sk e d w h e th e r th e re w e re a n yg u n s in h is bedr oom , Z w i bel gl ance d att he ni ghts t and and then t ol d t he off i cer s thatanyguns i n t he r oom w oul d be behi nd a dr es s er . Z w i bel then r eac hed behi nd the dr es s er , and fi ndi ng no guns , t ol d t he off

i cer s “[i ] f the fi r earm s w er e ther e, theyw oul d be behi nd thi s dr es s er , and t h e y w ou ldn ’t

be in any other area of the h ou se . ” A pp. 115 ( emphasi s added) . T hus , t he j ur ycoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude thatZ w i bel , know i ng the guns w er e i n t he ni ghts t and, h a d a t t e m p t e d t o d i v e r tt h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s ’ a t t e n t i o n f

r o m th e g u n s ’ tru e l o c a t i o n b y di r ect i ng t he off

i cer s t ow ar d t he dr es s erand then t el l i ng the off i cer s thatther e w er e no guns el s ew her e i n t he hous e. L y i ng t o author i t i es orengagi ng i n otherw i s e eva s i ve conducti s pr obat i ve of c ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, B ooker , 436 F. 3d at242; J enki ns , 90 F. 3d 818, and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe evi dence of Zw i bel ’ s m i s di r ect i on of the pr obat i on off i cers supp ort s the jury ’s ult i m at e con cl usi on that he con struct i velypo sses sed t he g un s. 4t hos e ca s es di d notat t empt t o i m pede a uthor i t i es ’ abi l i t yt o fi nd contr aband. 9 B . Z w i bel nextar gues t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j uryi ns t ruct i ons di d notpr oper l yexpl ai n t he conc eptof cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe l egal s t andar ds enunci at ed i n a j ur yi ns t ruct i on butr evi ew the w or di ng of the i ns t ruct i on for abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. L ee, 359 F. 3d 194, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew th e ju ryc h a rg e a s a w h o le “ to d e ter m in e w h e th e r, tak e n a s a w h o le, th e yp ro p e rly a p p ri z e d th e ju ry o f

th e is s u e s a n d th e a p p lic a b le la w .” Id . a t 2 0 3 -0 4 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he jurycharge regardi ng con struct i ve p ossess i on reads as fol l ow s: “To poss es s m eans t o have s om ethi ng w i t hi n a per s on’ s contr ol . T hi s does not m ean the per s on m us thol d i tphy s i cal l yi n hi s hand, thati s , t o have a ctual hol di ng o n to it o r p o s s e s s io n o f it. A s l ong as the f

i r ear m is w i thi n the per s on’s contr olor the per s on has the pow erand i nt ent i on t o exe r cis e contr oloverthe f i r ear m , he p o ss e ss e s it. ” A pp. 200 ( emphasi s added) . Focus i ng on t he l as ts ent ence of thi s i ns t ruct i on, Z w i bel cl ai m s t he i ns t ruct i on w as i m pr operbeca us e the “w i t hi n t he per s on’ s contr ol ” l anguage of t hats ent ence author i zes a convi ct i on bas ed mer el yon a phy s i cal capa ci t yt o s ei ze the guns and thus “j et t i s ons ” the r equi r ementof i nt entr equi r ed t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. W e di s agr ee. R ev iew ing the in stru cti o n as a w h o le, as w e m u st, L ee , 3 5 9 F . 3 d at 20 3 -04 , w e a re s at i s fi ed thati tcorr ect l ypr es ent ed the i s s ue of c ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on t o t he j ury . T he10

fi r s ts ent ence of the i ns t ruct i on i dent i fi es pos s es s i on as defi ned bya per s on’ s contr ol over an obj ect . T he s econd s ent ence i nform s the j urythatone maypos s es s obj ect s bey ond t hos e i t ems hel d i n one’ s hand. T he fi r s tpartof the fi nal s ent ence of the i ns t ruct i on sim p lyrestates the firstsen tenc e – i. e., that p o sses sion o f a firearm relates to a p erso n ’s contr ol overi t– and the s econd pa r tof thats ent ence corr ect l ys t at es thatcons t ruct i ve po sses si on of a f

i rearm m aybe est abli shed b ya person’s pow er and i ntentt o ex erci se contr ol overt he fi r earm . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ead “ [a] s l ong as the fi r earm i s w i t hi n t he per s on’ s contr ol ort he per s on has t he pow erand i nt ent i on t o exer ci s e contr ol overthe fi r earm , he pos s es s es i t , ” as s et t i ng for t h t he pr operdefi ni t i on of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, I afe l i ce, 978 F. 2d at96, and w e di s cern no err ori n t he i ns t ruct i on. C . Z w i bel fi nall yargues 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) (1) i s unco nst i tuti on al on i t s face and as ap p li ed . H o w ev er, ou r de cisi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . S ing let ary , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 2001) , hel d ot herw i s e, and Zw i bel conce des he r ai s es the i s s ue mer el yt o pr es erve i tfor pos s i bl e en ba nc orSupr eme C our tr evi ew . B r . at46. I I I . W e have cons i der ed al l ot herar gum ent s m ade bythe part i es on appea l , and c o n c lu d e th a t n o f

u rth e r d isc u ss io n is n e c e ss a ry . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s O r derof j udgm entand convi ct i on.