2009 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
1-29-2009 

# U SA v . M arco L a b oy -T orres P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1220

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_2009

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 2009 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 . M ar c o L a bo y-T orr e s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1948. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1948H on. Sandr a D ayO ’ C onnor , A s s oci at e J us t i ce ( R et
. ) of the * Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 08- 1220

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . M A RC O LA BO Y
- TO RR ES,

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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C ri m inal N o . 0 6 -cr-03 5 1 -1 (H o n o rab le C h ri stop h er C
. C o n n er)

A r gued N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge , an d O ’C ONNO R , A s s o c ia te J u s tic e (R e t.). *2 ( Fi l ed: J anuary29, 2009) F RE DE RI CK W. UL RI CH , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) O ff ice o f F ed era l Pu b li c D ef en d er 100 C hes t nutSt r eet, Sui t e 306 H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a 17101 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant T HE ODOR E B. S M I T H I I I , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use 228 W al nutSt r eet , P. O
. B ox 11754 H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a 17108 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

O ’C ONNO R , A s s o c ia te J u s tic e (R e tir e d

). U nderfede r al l aw , i ti s a cr i m e foranyper s on “w ho has been c onvi ct ed i n anyco u r tof, a cr i m e puni s habl e by im p riso n m e n t f

o r a ter m e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r” to sh ip , tran sp o rt, r e c e i v e o rp o s s e s s a f i r e a r m o ra mmu n i t i o n . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )

. I n Sm a llv . U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U
. S. 385 ( 2005) , t he S up re m e C o u r t c o n s tr u e d th e p h r a s e “ c o n v ic t[ io n s ] in a n yc o u rt” i n t hats t atut e t o “enc om pas [s ] onl ydom es ti c, notfor ei gn,3 con v ict i ons . ” I

d. at387. T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i s w hether appel l ant ’ s convi ct i on i n a Puer t o R i can cour tfort he pos s es s i on o f m ar i j uana i s a “f

or ei gn” or“domest i c” c onvi ct i on under §922( g) ( 1) , a ques t i on of fi r s tim p ressi on i n t he C our t s of A p p e a ls. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s a d o m e stic c o n v i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e a m b i to f t h e s t a tu t e ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n . We ag ree , a n d ac co rdin g lyaf firm the c o u rt ’s de n ial o f a p p ell an t’ s m o tio n to d ism iss h is in d ictm e n t. I
. T he mat er i al fac t s ar e noti n di s put e. I n J ul y1999, appel l antM ar co Laboy

- T or r es w as convi ct ed i n the Super i or C our tof M ay aguez , Puer t o R i co, for pos s es s i ng m ar i j uana, and w as s ent ence d t o 36 m o n ths’ pr obat i on. T w o y ear s l at er , he m o v e d to th e U n ited S tate s in v io latio n o f th e te r m s o f

h is s ent ence . W hen he r etur ned t o Puer t o R i co i n 2005, he w as r ea rre ste d , h is p ro b a tio n w a s re v o k e d , an d h e w a s s e n ten c e d to se rv e a th re e y e a r te rm o f in c a rc e ra tio n , w ith tw o y e a rs’ c re d it for t he pr obat i on he had pr evi ous l ys erved. H e ul t i m at el ys erved s even mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent
. A ft erhe w as released, he returned to t he U nit ed S t at es. I n J u n e 2 0 06 , a p p e l l a n ta t t e mp t e d t o p u r c h a s e f r o m a lice n se d f

ire a rm s d e a le r in Y o rk , P e n n sy lv a n ia, tw o se m iaut om at i c pi s t ol s and one s t andar d pi s t ol

. O n the form r equi r ed byt he B ur eau of

A l cohol , T o bacc o, Fi r earm s and Expl os i ves ( A T F) t o compl et e a f

i r earm s pur chas e, appel l antcert i fi ed that h e h a d n e v e r b e e n c o n v icte d in a n y c o u rt o f a c rim e p u n ish a b leA T F For m 4473 i ncl udes t he ques t i on: “H ave y ou everbeen 1 convi ct ed i n any cour t of a fel ony , or any ot her cr i m e, forw hi ch the ju d g e c o u ld h av e im p ri so n ed y o u fo r m o re tha n o n e y ea r, e v e n i f y o u r e c e i v e d a s h o r t e rs e n t e n c e i n c l u d i n g p r o b a t i o n ?” S u p p lem en tal A p p en d ix fo r A p p ell ee 1 (em p h asis o m itt ed ). A ppel l antans w er ed “[ n] o. ” Ib id

. 4 by i m pr i s onm ent for a t erm exce edi ng one y ear . Suppl ement al A pp en d ix forA ppel l ee 1. W hen the dea l erper form ed an 1 i ns t antcr im inal backgr ound chec k, appel l ant ’ s Puer t o R i can c o n v ictio n tu rn e d u p , an d th e d e a ler c o n se q u e n tlyre f u se d to se ll appel l antt he thr ee ha ndguns

. Si x day s la t er , appel l ant en d ea v o red to p u rch ase tw o h an d g u n s fro m a d iffe ren t dea ler, w i t h t he s ame r es ul t
. A gai n he ce r t i fi ed tha t he had no di s qual i f y i n g c o n v i ct i ons , Suppl ement al A ppendi x forA ppel l ee 5 , ag a in a c rim in a l b a c k g ro u n d c h e c k u n c o v e re d h is P u e rto R i can c onvi ct i on, and aga i n t he tr ans act i on w as r efus ed. T hr ee mont hs l at er , agent s of the A T F i nt ervi ew ed ap p ell ant , and he c onfi r m ed thathe had be en convi ct ed for p o s s e s s i o n o f

ma r i j u a n a i n P u e r t o Ri c o a n d a d mi t t e d h i s t wo s u b s e q u e n ta t t e mp t s t o p u r c h a s e f i r e a r ms i n P e n n s y l v a n i a . He w as l at er i nd i ct ed b y a grand j ury for t w o coun t s of m aking fals e o r f ictitio u s s tate m e n ts t o d e c e iv e a lice n se d f ire a rm s d e a ler in t h e s a l e o r a c q u i s i t i o n o f a f i r e a r m, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S
. C. §922( a) ( 6)

. I n r el evantpar t , t hats t atut e makes i tunl aw ful

“ k n o wi n g l yt o ma k e a n yf a l s e o rf i c t i t i o u s o r a l o rwr i t t en st at em ent .
. . w i t h respectt o an y factm at eri al t o the l aw fulness5 of [a ] s al e [of

fi r earm s ]
. ” I

bi d. T he G overnm entas s er t ed that appel l antknew t hateac h of hi s deni al s of di s qual i fy i ng convi ct i ons w as fal s e. I tfur t heras s er t ed thateac h w as m at er i al b e c a u se h is P u e rto R ica n c o n v ictio n m a d e it u n law f u l f o r h im to p u rc h a se f

ir e a rm s u n d e r § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t itis “unl aw ful foranyper s on . . . w ho has been c onvi ct ed i n any co u rto f, a c ri m e p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t f o r a term e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r . . . to re c e iv e a n y f ir e a rm o r a m m u n itio n .” A p p e llan t p lea d e d n o t g u iltya n d m o v e d to d is m iss h is in d ictm e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t f a iled a d e q u a tely to a lle g e th e m a te ri a lity e le m e n t o f th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e . U ni t ed Stat es v . Laboy- Torr es , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 1 5 5 5 5 0 , * 1 (M D P a. 20 0 7 ). H e as s er t ed thatpur s uantt o t he r ea so ni ng of Sm a llv . U ni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U .S
. 3 8 5 , th e f ire a rm s p u rc h a se s h e a ttem p ted w o u ld have be en l aw ful u nder§922( g) ( 1) beca us e hi s Puer t o R i can convi ct i on w as ent er ed by a “for ei gn” cour t excl uded fr om t he s t atut e’ s r efe r ence t o “anycour t
. ” I d. a t * 2 ; se e Sm a ll , 54 4 U. S. at387 ( cons t rui ng §922( g) ( 1) t o “enc om pas [s ] onl ydom es t i c, n o t f o re ig n , co n v ictio n s” ). A s h is a tte m p te d p u rc h a se s w o u ld have be en l aw ful not w i t hs t andi ng hi s Puer t o R i can c onvi ct i on, he ar gued thatconvi ct i on w as nota fa ctm at er i al t o t he l aw ful nes s of ea ch att empt ed pur chas e. 2007 W L 2155550, at *2. I n t he abs ence of m at er i al i t y
— an el ementnece s s aryfor c o n v ictio n u n d e r § 9 2 2 (a )(6 )— a p p e llan t co n ten d e d th a t h is in d ic tm e n t w a s le g a lly d e f ic ie n t a n d h a d to b e d is m is s e d

. I bi d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, r ej ect i ng t he pr emi s e upon w hi ch i tw as bas ed. T he courtconcl uded thatA ppel l antw as s ent en ce d t o i m pr i s onm entfor12 m ont hs 2 plus on e dayand t w o y ears ’ s up ervi sed rel ease. H e w as al so or der ed t o pay a $500 fi ne and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent
. A pp. t o B r i ef f

orA ppel l ant3–9. 6 appel l ant ’ s Puer t o R i can c onvi ct i on w as a “domes t i c” c o n v ict ion u n d er Sm a ll , a n d t h a ta p p e l l a n t ’ s a t t e mpt ed p u rc h a s e s th u s w e re p ro h ib ite d b y§ 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). I d. at *2

– * 3
. In l i ghtof thi s concl us i on, appel l ant ’ s cont e n t i o n th a th i s o mi s s i ons w er e i m m at er i al

— and t hat hi s i ndi ctm ent under§922( a) ( 6) t hus w as l egal l yi ns uffi ci ent

— coul d nots ucce ed. A ppel l antt hen pl eade d gui l t yt o on e count of the i ndi ctm ent , on t he cond it ion t hathe coul d appea l t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of hi s di s m i s s al m ot i on. A ft ers ent enci ng, he 2 fi l ed the i ns t antappea l , w hich p r es ent s a s i ngl e i s s ue. S p ec ifi ca ll y , ap p e llan t cha ll en g es o n lythe D istri ct C o u rt ’s concl us i on t hathi s Puer t o R i can c onvict ion w as a “domes t i c” convi ct i on under§922( g) ( 1) and Sm a ll . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n s i d e rh i s t i me l ya p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i on de novo

. U ni t ed Stat es v . M

yers , 3 0 8 F
. 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).

II. A r e vi e w o f

t h e p r i n c i p l e s t h a ta n i ma t e d t h e S u p r e me C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n Sm a lld em o n str ates tha t dec isi o n ’s in a p p lica b ili tyto P u e rto R ica n c o n v ictio n s. P u t sim p ly , P u e rto R ican co n v ict ion s lack the c h ara cterist ics ce n tr al t o the C o u rt ’s7 t reatm ent of

forei gn con vict i on s. In the ab sence o f t hese char act er i s t i cs , t her e i s no bas i s t o ext end the r eas oni ng of Sm a ll to th e c o u rts o f

P u e rto R ico . M o re o v e r, p re c e d e n t an d p rin c ip le couns el i n favorof tr eat i ng Puer t o R i can c our t s as “domest i c” cour t s forpurp o ses of §922( g) ( 1)

. W e thus concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC ourt pr oper l yi ncl uded Puer t o R i can c onvi ct i ons am on g the predi cat es t hat tri gg er §922 (g) (1) ’s prohibi t i on s. A. I n Sm a ll , the S u p rem e C o u rt co n side red w h ethe r a J apanes e convi ct i on qual i fi ed as a pr edi cat e convi ct i on under §922( g) ( 1)

. T he C our tbegan i t s anal y s i s w i t h “the l egal pr es um pt i on t hatC ongr es s or di nar i l y i nt ends i t s s t atut es t o have dom es t i c, not extr at err i t or i al , ap p li cat i on. ” I d. at388–389. “[A ] l t hough t he pr es um pt i on agai ns textr at err i t or i al appl i cat i on d[i d] n o t appl ydi r ect l y ” bec aus e Sm a lldi d notconce r n t he ap p li ca b il ityo f a U n it ed S tat es law to fo reign co n d u ct, the C o u rt no nethel ess reasoned t hat “a s i m i l ar as sum pti on [w as] appr opr i at e, ” i d. at389, w hen construi ng t he st atut e’ s us e of t he phr as e “a nycour t
. ” The fac tt hatthe s t atut e w oul d be pr es um ed nott o pr ohi bi tconductt hatocc u r s i n J apan pr edi s pos ed the C our t simi l ar l yt o pr es um e thatC ongr es s di d noti nt end J apane s e convi ct i ons t o s erve as p red i cat es fort he c ri m in a liz a tio n o f c o n d u c t th a t o c c u rs in th e U n ite d S ta te s . I bi d. T he C our tfound t he pr opr i etyof thi s pr es um pt i on r ei nfor ced byt hr ee “ i m por t antw ay s” i n w hi ch “f or ei gn con vi ct i ons di ffe rfr om dom es t i c convi ct i ons . ” I bi d. F irst,8 f o re ig n law s m a yp ro h ib it “c o n d u c t th a t d o m e stic law s w o u ld perm i t , forexampl e, . . . engagi ng i n economi c conduct t hatour s oci etym i ghtencour age. ” Ibi d. ( c i t i n g Ru s s i a n l a ws cr i m i nal i zi n g “P ri v ate Ent r epr eneur i al A ct i vi t y ” and “Specul at i on, ” and Cuban l aw s forbi ddi ng p r opaganda t hat i nci t es agai ns tt he s oci al or der , i nte r nat i onal s ol i dar i t y , ort he comm uni s t s t at e)

. Second, a for ei gn l egal s y s t em m ayl ack the s afe guar ds nece s s ary t o ens ur e t hat t he convi ct i ons i tpr oduces a r e c o n s i s t e n tw i t h A m e r i c a n n o t i o n s o f f a i r n e s s , m o s tn o t a b l y, th e g u a ra n te e o f

d u e p ro c e s s . I

d. at389–90 ( cit ing a l egal r egi m e thatad d i t i o n a l l yfai l s t o guar ant ee e qual pr ot ect i on under t he l aw bypr ovi di ng t hat“the t es t i m onyof one man equal s t hat o f tw o w om en”)

. T hi r d, for ei gn convi ct i ons m aycr i m i nal i ze “conduc tt hatdom es t i c l aw puni s hes farl es s sev ere l y . ” I d. at 390 (cit ing a pr ovi s i on of Si ngapor e’ s l aw t hatauthor i zes im p ri so n m en t fo r up to three y ea rs fo r an ac t of v an d ali sm ). In l i ght of t hes e di ffe r ence s , t he C our t concl uded thatconvi ct i ons in f o reign co u rt s o f crim es p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a y earorm or e “l es s r el i abl y i dent i f[y ] danger ous i ndi vi dual s for t he purpos es of U

. S. l aw . ” I bi d. T he C our t“cons equent l yas s um e[d] a congr es s i onal i nt entt hatt he phr as e ‘ convi ct ed i n anycour t ’ appl i e[d] dom es t i cal l y , notextr at err i t or i al l y . ” I d. at 390–91. I t found no r eas on i n t he s t atut or yl anguage , cont ext , hi s t or y , orpurpos e of § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) t o d e p a rt f

ro m th is a s s u m p tio n . I

d. at391–94. A ppel l ant ’ s at t empt t o ext end the r eas oni ng of Sm a llto P u e r t o Ri c a n c o n v i c t i o n s f a i l s wh e r e i tmu s tb e g i n . AsO f cou rs e, w e are not boun d b ythe d eci si on s o f th e F i rs t 3 C i r cui t
. H ow ever , i n l i ghtof thatcour t ’ s appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overcas es fr om t he D i s t r i ctof Puer t o R i co, and i t s r es ul t ant expert i s e w i t h Puer t o R i can l aw , w e ac cor d i t s deci s i ons on t hat su b jec t g re a t w e ig h t. 9 expl ai ned, t he Sm a llC our t ’ s anal y s i s fi r m l yw as r oot ed i n t he pr es um pt i on agai ns tthe extr at err i t or i al appl i cat i on of fe der al la w s . H o w e v e r, th e o p p o site p re su m p tio n a p p lies to P u e rto R i co; fede r al l aw s ar e pr es um ed t o appl yt o Puer t o R i can conduct

. 48 U
. S. C
. § 734 ( “The st atut or yl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es notl ocal l yi nappl i cabl e . . . s hal l have the s ame for ce a nd e f f e c t in P u e rto R ico a s in th e U n ited S tate s[ .]”) ; see al so , e .g ., U ni t ed Stat es v . A cos ta- M arti nez , 2 5 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 , 1 8 (1st C ir

. 2001) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“the defaul t rul e . . . i s t hat , as a gene r al m at t er , a fe der al s t atut e does appl yt o Puer t o R i co pur s uantt o 48 U . S . C . § 7 3 4 ” ); Trai l erMar i ne Tr ans por tC or p. v . R i vera V azqu ez, 977 F. 2d 1, 1 8 ( 1s tC i r . 1992) ( “[F] eder al s t atut es app l yi n P uert o R i co, as theyd o i n an yst at e, un l ess otherw i se p rov ided

. ”). 3 T hi s fundament al di ffe r ence i s i l l us t r at ed i n Sm a lli t s el f. I n i t s di s cus s i on of t he pr es um pt i on agai ns t e xt r at err i t or i al appl i cat i on, t he Sm a llC our tci t ed fo u rcas es , i n eac h of w hi ch t he pre su m p ti on w as appl i ed t o l i m i tt he s cope of a fe der al s ta tu te
. Sm a ll , 544 U
. S. at388–89. Y eteac h of thos e s t atut es c o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o Pu e r t o Ri c a n c o n d u c t
. Fo r e x ampl e, t he C our tci t ed Sm ith v . U ni ted St at es , 507 U
. S. 197, 203–20410 (1 9 9 3 ), w h ich a p p lied th e p re su m p tio n a g a in st e x tra ter rito r ia l a p p lica tio n to lim it th e sc o p e o f th e F e d e ra l T o rt C laim s A c t. T h a t sta tu te h a s s in c e b e e n a p p lied to c o n d u c t th a t o c c u rre d in P u e rt o R ic o . E

. g. , Torr es - Lazar i ni v . U ni t ed Stat es , 523 F. 3d 69 ( 1s tC i r . 2008)

. Si m i l ar l y , T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1 9 6 4 h a s b e e n h e ld in a p p li c a b le to e x tra ter rito ria l co n d u c t, EE OCv . A r abi an A m er i can O i lC o. , 4 9 9 U
. S
. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (19 9 1 ), b u t a p p l i c a b l e to P u e rt o R ic a n c o n d u c t, id

. at267 n. 3. T he s cope of t he Feder al E i ghtH ourL aw , 40 U
. S. C
. §§321–26, w a s a ls o lim ite d in th is m a n n e r, Fol ey Bros

. , I nc. v . F i l ar do , 336 U
. S. 281, 285–86 ( 1949) , butt he F ai r L aborSt andar ds A cthas s in c e b e e n a p p lie d to e m p lo y e r c o n d u c t in P u e rt o R ic o , Mitch e ll v . N o lla , G a lib & C o m

p a n ia , 1 7 6 F
. S u p p . 8 8 3 , 8 8 7

– 8 8 ( D. P
. R. 1959)

. L as t l y , appl y i ng t he pr es um pt i on agai ns textr at err i t or i al sc o p e , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t an a n ti-p ira c ysta tu te appl i ed onl yt o U ni t ed St at es ci t i ze n s ab oar d s hi ps bel ongi ng e x c lu s iv e ly to s u b

je c ts o f a f o re ig n s ta te
. Uni t e d

S t at es v. P alm er , 3 W heat

. 610, 630–634 ( 1818)

. B eca us e Puer t o R i cans are U n it ed S tat es c it izen s, i nf r a, a t 1 4 , tod a yth e sta tu te w o u ld g o v e rn th e ir c o n d u c t. Sect i on 922( g) s i m i l ar l yi s appl i ed t o Puer t o R i can co n d u ct. In th e f

ive y ea r pe ri o d e n d ing S ep tem b er 2 0 0 8 there w er e more t han 175 prose cut i ons undert hats ect i on i n t he U ni t ed Stat es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof Puer t o R i co. U npubl i s hed D at a, C r i m inal P rod u cti o n D atab as e, Ad mi n i s t r a t i v e Of

f i c e o f t h e U. S
. Co u r t s , W a s hi n g t o n , DC. (ge n era ted D ec em b er 2 , 2 0 0 8 , av ail ab le i n C lerk o f C ourt’ s file).11 Pr es um abl y , m os t( i f notal l ) of thos e pr os ecut i ons s t emm ed fr om conductt hat occurr ed i n Puer t o R i co. C er t ai nl y , s om e of th e m d id

. E

. g. , U

. S. v . A n d u ja r-O rtiz , 575 F. Supp. 2d 373 ( D
. P. R
. 2008) ( conce r ni ng pr os ecut i on forvi ol at i on of §922( g) ( 1) s t emm i ng fr om conductoccurr i ng i n Puer t o R i co ); U. S. v . Torr es - G on za l ez , 526 F. Supp. 2d 210 ( D
. P. R
. 2007) ( s ame)

. I tw oul d tur n Sm a ll o n its h e a d to c o n c lu d e th a t P u e rto R i can c on vi ct i ons cannots erve as pr edi cat e convi ct i ons under § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) n o tw ith stan d in g th e f ac t th at th at sec ti o n ’s p ro h ib iti o n s g o v e rn P u e rto R ica n c o n d u c t. Si m i l ar l yi nappos i t e ar e the impor t antdi ffe r ence s betw een U
. S. and for ei gn l aw des cr i bed by t he C our ti n Sm a ll

. Puer t o R i can c onvi ct i ons ar e cons i s t entw i t h t he “A m er i can under s t andi ng of fa i r nes s , ” Sm a ll , 544 U
. S. at389, beca us e the fundament al pr ovi s i ons of t he U

. S. C ons t i tut i on t hatguar ant ee f a ir n e s s a p p ly w ith e q u a l f o rc e in P u e rt o R ic o . E

. g. , P os adas de P u erto R ico A s s oci at es v . To u r is m C o . o f P. R. , 478 U
. S. 328, 331 n. 1 ( 1986) ( ci t i ng B al z ac v . P or t o R i co , 258 U
. S. 298, 314 (1 9 2 2 ) (F irst A m e n d m e n t F re e S p e e c h C lau se ); C al er o- Tol edo v . P ears on Y

acht Leas i ng C o. , 4 1 6 U .S . 6 6 3 , 6 6 8

– 6 9 , a n d n .5 (1 9 7 4 ) (D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F if th o r F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t); E

xam i ni ng B d. of

E ngi neer

s , A r chi t ect

s and Su rveyors v . F l ores de O t ero , 426 U
. S. 572, 599–601 ( 1976) (e q u a l p ro tec tio n g u a ra n te e o f th e F if th o r F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t); Torr es v . P uer t o R i co , 442 U
. S. 465, 471 ( 1979) (F o u rth A m en d m en t) ). W e a re m ind fu l th at no t eve ry c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t h a s b e e n e x te n d e d to P u e rt o R ic a n s . E .g .,12 E xam i ning B oa rd , 426 U
. S. at600 n. 30 ( des cr i bi ng t he I ns ul ar C ases and expl ai ni ng t hat“onl y‘ fundament al ’ cons t i tut i onal rig h ts w e re g u a ra n tee d to th e in h a b itan ts” o f P u e rto R ico ). It is th e f u n d a m e n tal c o n stitu tio n a l r ig h ts th a t w e re a c c o rd e d P u e rto R i cans , how ever , t hatguar ant ee them t he “A m er i can under s t andi ng of fa i r nes s , ” Sm a ll , 544 U
. S. at389. T hese protect i on s no t on l y gu arant ee A m eri can f ai rness i n Puer t o R i can co u rt s, butal s o i m pos e l i m i t at i ons upon t he t ypes of conduc tt hatcan be cr i m i nal i ze d an d t he ext entof puni s hm entt hatcan be i m pos ed fort hos e cr i m es . A tor al arg u m en t, ap p ell an t’ s co u n sel su g g e s ted that P u erto R ico’s a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f a t h r e e y e a r t e r m of i n c a r c e r a t i o n f o rt h e c r i me of pos s es s ing a s m al l amount of m ar i j uana de m ons t r at es t hat Puer t o R i co puni s hes cert ai n cr i m es farm or e s ever el yt han do th e S ta te s . See T r ans cr i pt of O r al A r gum ent at 12. W e di s agr ee. T h e re is a w id e d isp a rityin th e p u n ish m e n t au th o riz e d in di ffe r entSt at es fort he cr i m e of pos s es s i ng a sm all amount of m a ri j u a n a . C o m p a re , e. g. , N
. M
. St at
. A nn. §30–31–23( b) ( 1) ( 2005) ( pos s es s i on of one ounc e orl es s of m ar i j uana i s , fort he fi r s toffe ns e, puni s hab le b y a fi ne of 50 t o 100 dol l ar s and im p ri so n m en t fo r u p to 15 d ay s) w ith F la. S tat
. § § 8 9 3
. 1 3 (6)(b ), 7 7 5
. 0 8 2 (4)(a), 77 5
. 0 8 3 (1)(d ) (20 0 5 ) ( p o sses sion o f n o t m o re t han 20 gr ams of ca nnabi s ( w hi ch i s l es s t han one ounce) i s , for t he fi r s toffe ns e, puni s habl e by a fi ne of up t o 1, 000 dol l ar s and im p riso n m e n t f

o r u p to o n e y e a r). W h ile a d m itt e d lystr in g e n t, Puer t o R i co’ s choi ce of t he maxi m um p u ni s hm entfort he off ense i s not qual i t at i velydiffer ent fr om t hat of t he S t at es.13 M o re o v e r, w e n o te th a t ap p e llan t w a s in iti a llyse n ten c e d o n lyto pr obat i on. H e w as i ncar cer at ed notbeca us e he pos s es s ed m ar i j uana, butbeca us e he vi ol at ed t he t erm s of thatpr obat i on. A ppel l antoffe r s no ot herevi dence of the purpor t ed s ever i t yof P u e rto R ica n p u n ish m e n t. L as t l y , unl i ke a f

or ei gn d ef

endant , a Puer t o R i can d ef en dantm aycol l at er al l ychal l enge the fa i r nes s of her convi ct i on bypeti t i oni ng t he Feder al D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i stri ctof P uert o R i co fo r a federal w rit o f hab eas corpus. C ru z - Sanchezv . R i vera-C ordero , 835 F. 2d 947, 948 ( 1s tC ir

. 19 87 )

. I n s ome c a s e s , di r e c tr e vi e w i s a l s o av a i l a bl e i n t he U
. S. Supr eme C ourtt hr ough a pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i

. 28 U
. S. C
. §1258; 48 U
. S. C
. §864. I n sh o rt , the const i tut i onal a n d sta tu to ryp ro tec tio n s a c c o rd e d P u e rto R ica n s w o u ld for ecl os e the enf

or cement i n Puer t o R i co of s t atut es l i ke the for ei gn l aw s t he Sm a llC our tfound tr oubl i ng. A gainstt hi s backdr op, i ts i m pl ycannotbe s ai d t hat Puer t o R i can cr i m es puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm ent fora y ea r or m or e “l es s r el i abl y i dent i f[y ] danger ous i ndi vi dual s ” than do the c ri m e s c o d if

ie d b yth e S ta te s . Sm a ll , 544 U
. S. at390. W e thus fi nd no bas i s forext endi ng Sm a llt o convi ct i ons ent er ed by P uert o R i can co urt s . B. T o th e c o n tra ry , w e c o n c lu d e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to i ncl ude P uer t o R i can convi ct i ons as pr edi cat es forpurpos es of14 §9 2 2 (g)(1)

. T hi s concl us i on i s cons i s t entw i t h C ongr es s ’ and cou rt s’ t reatm ent of P uert o R i co in ot her con t exts
. P u e r t o Ri c o p o s s e s s e s “ a me a s u r e o f a ut on o my compar abl e t o t hatpos s es s ed by t he St at es . ” E xam i ning B oa rd , 4 2 6 U .S . at 5 9 7 ; see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v . A cos ta- M ar t i nez , 252 F
. 3 d 1 3 , 1 8 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (“C o n g ress m aintains sim il ar p o w ers overPuer t o R i co as i t pos s es s es overt he fe der al s t at es . ”)

. L i ke t he St at es , i thas a r epubl i can f or m of governm ent , or gani zed pur s uantt o a cons t i tut i on adopt ed byi t s p eo p le, and a bi l l of ri g h ts
. E .g ., 4 8 U
. S
. C
. § § 7 3 1 b

– 7 3 1 e . T h i s g o v e r n m e n te n j o ys th e s a m e im m u n ity f

r o m s u it p o s s e s s e d b yth e S ta te s , R am i r ez v . P uer t o R i co Fi r e Ser vi ce , 7 1 5 F
. 2 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 (1st C ir

. 1 9 8 3 ). L i ke the St at es , Puer t o R i co l acks “the ful l s over ei gnt yof an in d e p e n d e n t n a tio n ,” f o r e x a m p le, th e p o w e r to m a n a g e its “ext ernal r el ati o n s w i t h ot hernat i ons , ” w hi ch w as r et ai ned by th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t. A m er i cana of P u erto Ri co, I nc. v. Kapl us , 368 F. 2d 431, 435 ( 3d C i r . 1966)

. A s w i t h ci t i zens of t he St at es , Puer t o R i can c i t i zens ar e ac corde d U ni t ed St at es c itiz e n s h ip , id ., at434, and the funda m ent al p rotec ti ons of the U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n , s upr a, at 11
. T he ri gh t s, pri vil eges, an d im m u n it ies att en d an t to U n it ed S tat es c it izen sh ip are

“ re sp e c ted in P u e rto R ico to th e sa m e e x ten t as th o u g h P u e rto R i c o w e r e a S t a t e o f t h e U n i o n . ” 4 8 U
. S
. C
. § 7 3 7
. F i n a l l y, Puer t o R i can j udgm ent s ar e guar ant eed the s ame ful l fai t h and c re d it as a re th o se o f th e S tate s. 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 7 3 8 ; A m er i cana of P uer t o R i co, I

nc. , 368 F. 2d at437.15 I ti s t hus not s urpr i s i ng t hat“al t hough Puer t o R i co i s not a s t at e i n the fe dera l U n ion, ‘ i t
. . . s eem[s] t o have be come a S tate w ith in a c o m m o n an d ac ce p ted m ea n ing o f th e w o rd.’ ” Uni t e d S tat es v . S tee le , 685 F. 2d 793, 805 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( quot i ng Mor a v. Mej i as , 2 0 6 F
. 2 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 7 (1st C ir

. 1 9 5 3 )); see al so C al ero- Tol edo , 4 1 6 U. S
. a t6 7 2 ( q u o t i n g t h e s a me pas s age w i t h appr oval )

. C ons i s t entw i t h this comm on and ac ce p ted u n d erstan d ing , C o n g ress f req u en tl yu ses th e term “St at e” t o r efe ral s o t o Puer t o R i co. Inde ed, i tdi d s o i n t he s e c ti o n a t is s u e h e re , § 9 2 2 (a )( 2 )( c ). See a l so , e .g ., 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 1 7 1 ( b ) ( t r a n s p o r t a t i on of g a mb l i n g d e v i c e s ) ; 1 6 U. S
. C. § 3 3 7 1 ( h ) ( t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f i l l e g a l l yt a k e n wi l d l i f

e ) ; 1 8 U. S
. C. § 8 9 1 ( 8 ) ( e xt ort i o n a t e c r e d i tt r a n s a c t i o n s ) ; 1 8 U. S
. C. §1953 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( i n t e r s t a t e t r a n s por t at i on of w ager i ng par aphe rna li a) ; 18 U
. S. C
. §1955( b) ( 3) ( i l l egal gambl i ng) ; 18 U
. S. C
. §1961( 2) ( r acke t eer i ng i nfl uence d and corrupt or g a n i z a t i o n s ) ; 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) ( d e f i n i n g “ s t a t e” f

or purpos es of di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on)

. M or e s i gni fi cant ly , w hen C on gress f

a ils exp l i ci t l yt o refer t o P uert o R i co, cou rt s m ust n o n e th e le s s in q u ir e w h e th e r i t in te n d e d to d o s o . E .g ., P u e rto R i co v . Shel lC o. (

P

. R

. ) , Ltd. , 302 U
. S. 253 ( 1937) ( det erm i ni ng a s t atut e’ s appl i cabi l i t yt o Puer t o R ico is a ques t i on of c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t); A cos ta- M ar t i nez , 252 F. 3d at11 ( “W hen det erm i ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of a fede r al s t atut e t o Puer t o R i co, cour t s m us tcons t rue the l anguage . . . t o eff ectuat e the i nt entof the l aw m aker s . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m it ted)). C on du ct i ng thi s i nqui ry , c ou rt s r ou t i nelycon cl ud e t hat C on gress i nt ended t o i ncl ude Puer t o R i co even w hen a s t atut e i s s i l enton16 th a t f ro n t. E .g ., E

xam i ning B oa rd , 426 U
. S. at597 ( defi ni ng “St at e” t o i ncl ude Puer t o R i co forpurpos es of 42 U

. S. C
. §1983 a n d 2 8 U
. S . C . § 1 3 4 3 (3 )); A m er i cana of P uer t o R i co, I

nc. , 368 F. 2d, at 437 ( fede r al s t atut e t hat r efe r r ed t o t he proc eedi ngs of any“St at e, T err it or y , orPoss es s i on, ” appl i ed t o Puer t o R i co even though Puer t o R ico w as nota St at e, T err i t or y , or P o ss e ss io n ); U

. S. I

. P r oper t i es C or

p. v . M

. D. Con s tr . C o. , 2 30 F. 3d 489, 499–500 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( defi ni ng “St at e” t o i ncl ude Puer t o R i co forpurpos es of di v ersit yj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 ); C or dova & Si m onpi etr i I ns ur ance Agency I

nc. v . Cha s e M

a n h a t ta n Ba n k

N. A. , 649 F. 2d 36, 38 ( 1s tC i r . 1981) (treat i ng P uert o R i c o as a “S t at e” un der the S herm an A nti t rust A ct). O f

p a rticu lar r e le v a n c e h e re , co u rts— in c lu d in g th is one— have i ncl uded Puer t o R i can c onvi ct i ons w hen cons t rui ng s t atut or yr efe r ence s t o pr edi cat e “St at e” of fens es . Forexampl e, i n U ni t ed Stat es v . St eele , 6 8 5 F . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ), th is C ou rt co ns t rued the def i ni t i on of pr edi cat e off

ens es undert he T ra v e l A c t, 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 2
. A s re le v a n t, th a t sta tu te c rim in a lize d th e u se o f f a c ili ties o f

in ter sta te c o m m e rc e in f u rth e ra n c e o f

“ b rib e ry . . . in v io latio n o f th e law s o f th e S tate i n w hi ch comm i t t ed

. ” §1952. L i ke appe l l anther e, t he S tee le defe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s t hei ri ndi ctm ent s on t he theoryt hat a Puer t o R i can c r i m e coul d not serv e as a pr edi cat e for c o n v ic tio n u n d e r t h e f

e d e ra l s ta tu te
. Id

. a t8 0 4
. S p e c i f i c a l l y, t heyar gued that t he pr ovi s i on’ s r efe r ence t o “the l aw s of the St at e i n w hich [th e br i beryw as ] comm i t t ed” c oul d notbe17 un derst oo d to enco m pass Pu ert o R i can an t i bri beryl aw s becau se Puer t o R i co i s nota “St at e. ” Ib id

. R evi ew i ng t he purpos e and h isto ryo f th e leg isla tio n , w e h a d “ n o d if f icu ltyre jec tin g [ th a t] ar gum ent
. ” I

d. a t 8 0 4

– 8 0 5 . In sh o rt, w e f o u n d “ n o re a so n to h o ld th a t C o n g re ss . . . ch o s e th e w o rd ‘S tate ’ to d e n yP u e rto R i can l aw enfor ceme n tt he as s i s t ance ext ended t o ot her l ocal i t i es w i t hi n C ongr es s ’ pow ert o pr ot ect
. ” I d. at805. Atl e a s tt wo Co u r t s o f Ap p e a l s r e a c he d t h e s a me concl us i on w hen cons t rui ng t he def i ni t i on of pr edi cat e off

ens es u n d er the F e d era l Se n tenc ing G u idelines ’ “c are er o ff en d er” p rov isi o n , U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4 B 1 .1
. T h at sec ti o n p rov ides fo r a hei ght ened s ent ence i f the def endanth as “atl eas tt w o pr i or fel onyconvi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. ” I

bi d. P re d ica te o f

f e n se s a re d e f

in e d in per t i nentpar t as “off ens e[s ] underfede r al ors t at e l aw . ” §§4B 1. 2( a) , ( b)

. T he Fi r s tand N inth C i r cui t s bot h have cons i der ed and r ej ect ed the ar gum entt hatPuer t o R ic o convi ct i ons fal l out s i de thi s pr ovi s i on b ecaus e theyar e not “off ens e[s ] underfede r al ors t at e l aw . ” E

. g. , U n it ed Stat es v. Torr es - R os a, 2 0 9 F . 3 d 4 , 8 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U nited S ta te s v. C i r i no , 419 F. 3d 1001, 1005 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) (p e rc u r ia m ). T heyexpl ai ned thatt hatar gum ent“ ‘ compl et el yi gnor es t he b o d y o f cas e l aw r ecogni zi ng t hatC ongr es s has acc or ded the C om m onw eal t h of Puer t o R i co ‘ t he degr ee of aut onom yand ind ep en d en ce n o rm all y asso ciated w ith S tat es o f the U n ion

. ’ ” C i r i no , 419 F. 3d at1003 –1004 ( quot i ng T orres- R osa , 209 F. 3d at8 ( quot at i on m arks and emphas i s om i t t ed) )

. I n l igh t of that18 c a se law , the se c o u rts re q u ire d th e re sp e c tiv e a p p e llan ts to “s ho[w ] t hatt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on m eantt o excl ude fel ony convi ct i ons i n Puer t o R i co C om m onw eal t h C our t s , ” and c o n c lu d e d th a t th e yh a d f a ile d to d o s o . I

d. at1004. T he reaso n in g o f

th e se p re c e d e n ts w o u ld a lm o st c e rta in ly d icta te th e c o n c lu sio n th a t a r e f e re n c e to a “ S ta te c o u rt” in § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) wou l d h a v e e n c o mpa s s e d Pu e r t o Ri c o . Howev e r , we need notr eac h that hur dl e. W e fa ce as t atut e w i t h br oader l ang uag e, m aking i t even easi er t o conclude that C o n g ress inten d ed to inc lud e P u erto R ican co n v ict ion s. T h e statute ref ers n o t to “ S t a t e ” c o n v ic tio n s , b u t to c o n v ic tio n s in “ a n yc o u rt .” § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) . A n d th e S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t co n stru e th e sta tu te t o appl yonl yt o “St at e” c our t s , butt o i ncl ude al l “domest i c” c o u rt s . Sm a ll , 5 4 4 U
. S . at 3 8 7 . In th is c o n tex t, i t is d if f icu lt t o i m agi ne a “ ‘ s how i n[g] ’ t hat[C ongr es s ] m eantt o excl ude fe l ony convi cti o n s i n Puer t o R i co C om m onw eal t h C our t s . ” C i r i no , 419 F. 3d, at1004. C er t ai nl y , appel l ant has fai l ed t o m ake s uch a s how i ng her e. H i s eff or tt o do s o i s l ar gel yi l l conce i ved. A ppel l ant pr i nci pal l ys t r es s es t hatPuer t o R i co has i t s ow n aut onom ous governm ent , cons t i tut ed and bound bya w r i t t en cons t itu t i on, and w i t h t hr ee br anche s m i r r or i ng t hos e of ournat i onal governm ent
. B r i ef for A ppel l ant14. A ppel l ant ’ s gr eatr el i ance u p o n this po int i s p erp lexin g , as th e sa m e c an b e sa id o f e v ery S tate in t he U nion (w i t h v ari at i on s i n the structures of t ho se g o v e rn m e n ts ). E

. g. , T

rai l er M ari ne Tran sportC orp . v . R i vera V az quez , 977 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1s t C i r . 1992) ( “[T] he governm entof19 t he C om m onw eal t h of P uer t o R i co i n m anyr es pect s r es embl es t hatof a s t at e. ”)

. A ppel l ants i m i l ar l yem p h as i zes t he fa ctt hat Puer t o R i co has been hel d “a s epar at e s over ei gn forpurpos es of t he D oubl e Jeo p ardy[and Com m er ce] C l aus e[s ] , ” B r i ef f or A p p e lla n t 1 4 , a f

a c t a ls o tru e o f

th e S ta te s . E .g ., He a th v. A l a b a ma , 4 7 4 U .S . 8 2 , 8 9 (1 9 8 5 ) (F o r p u rp o se s o f th e D o u b le Je o p a rd yC lau se , “th e S tate s a re se p a ra te so v e re ig n s w ith r es pectt o t he F eder al G overnm ent beca us e ea ch St at e’ s pow er t o pr os ecut e i s der i ved fr om i t s ow n ‘ i nher ents over ei gnt y , ’ not f ro m th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t” ( c itatio n o m itt e d )); Trai l er Mar i ne Tr ans

por tC or p. , 9 7 7 F . 2 d a t 1 9 (“ P u e r to R ic o is su bjectt o the con strai nts of the do rm ant C om m erce C l ause doctr i ne i n the s am e f

as hi on as the s tat es . ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )). T hes e ar gum ent s demonstr at e on ly t hatPuer t o R i can s over ei gnt y i s of an ext ent and char act er s i m i l ar t o that o f the St at es . T heyt hus underm i ne appe l l ant ’ s pos i t i on. A ppel l ants t ands on so m ew hatfi r m ergr ound w hen he in v o k e s a f

e d e ra l tax a tio n p ro v isio n th a t d istin g u ish e s P u e rto R i co and t he S t at es. B ri ef fo r A pp el l ant 15. H e ci t es R icc io v . U ni t ed Stat es , 1971 W L 442 ( D
. P. R
. 1971) , w hi ch conc erned t he appli ca ti o n of 26 U
. S. C
. §2014. T hats t atut e pr ovi des c re d its a g a in st f

e d e ra l es tate tax a tio n f

o r c e rta in tax e s “ p a id to a n yf o re ig n c o u n try .” § 2 0 1 4 (a ). “[ F ]o r p u rp o se s o f th e c re d its author i zed, ” the s t atut e pr ovi des t hat “ea ch pos s es s i on of the U n ite d S ta te s s h a ll b e d e e m e d to b e a f o re ig n c o u n tr y .” §2014( g)

. A s di d t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n R icc io , w e r ej ectt he i dea “thatt hi s pr ovi s i on of l aw deal s i n s om e w ay w i t h t he s t atus of20 t he C om m onw eal t h of Puer t o R i co. ” R icc io , 1971 W L 442 at*1 n. 3
. “ Po s s e s s i o n ” a nd “for ei gn countr y ” ar e “t ot al l yi ncons i s t ent t erm s , ” and w e can concl ude onl y t hat C ongr es s , “as a m at t erof con ven i en c e and si m pli ci t y , . . . desi gn at e[d] [t hese fundament al l y ] di ffe r entent i t i es byt he sa m e t erm . ” I bi d. In ot hert axat i on pr ovi s i ons, C ongr es s has dr aw n verydi ffe r ent l i nes , even si ngl i ng out Puer t o R i co fort r eatm entdi s t i nctfr om t hatac co rded other“pos s es s i ons . ” E

. g. , P ol ychr om e I

nt er n. C or p. v . Kr igger , 5 F
. 3 d 1 5 2 2 , 1 5 2 6 n . 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( “E v ery U
. S. pos s es s i on . . . i s el i gi bl e [f ort he es t abl i s hm entof for ei gn s ales corpor at i on s t atus ] exce ptPuer t o R i co. ” ( ci t i ng I nt ernal R evenue C ode §927( d) ( 5) )

. T aken a s a w hol e, fede r al t axat i on pr ovi s i ons s uppor tonl yt he es t abl i s hed pr opos i t i ons , des cr i bed supra , that C on gress need no t t reat P uert o R i co as a S t at e in every cont ext , and t hat C ongr es s s om et i m es expl i ci t l yel ect s not t o do s o. A ppel l a ntnextar gues t hatt he fr equent l y - i nvoked rul e of len ityd e m a n d s a c o n stru c tio n o f th e sta tu te in h is f a v o r. H e is m i s t aken. T he rul e of l eni t y “comes i nt o oper at i on atthe end of t he pr oces s of cons t ru ing w hatC ongr es s has expr es s ed, and appl i es onl yw hen, aft er co n sul t i ng t r adi t i onal canons of s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n , w e a re le f t w ith a n a m b ig u o u s s ta tu te .” B urgess v . U

ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t
. 1572, 1580 ( 2008) ( i nt ernal qu ota ti on s om i t t ed). F or the reasons exp l ai ned , C on gress ’ in c o rp o ra tio n o f

P u e rto R ica n c o n v ictio n s in § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) is u n a m b ig u o u s. T h e ru le o f len ityth u s f

in d s n o a p p lica tio n to th is cas e.21 L ast l y , app el l ant ar gu es that “the ex i st ence o f a P u e rto R i ca n N at i onal O l ym pi c C om m i t t ee di s t i nctfr om [thatof] t he U nit ed S t at es ” cou nsel s agai nstt reat i ng P uert o R i c o a s a dom es t i c ent i t y . B r i ef f orA ppel l ant15. W i t houtdi m i ni s hi ng t he pri de P uer t o R i co ri ght ful l y s houl d enj oyi n l i ghtof i t s pl ace i n t he pantheon of i nt ernat i onal s por t i ng ev en ts , w e r ej ectas m er i t l es s t he pr opos i t i on t hatcl as s i fi cat i ons m ade i n t he cont ext of the o rga ni zat i on of s uch eve nt s fi nd appl i cat i on t o t he c o n s t ru c t i o n o f

f e d e r a l l a w. III
. Puer t o Ri c a n c o n v i c t i o n s a r e n o t“ f o r e i g n ” c o n v i c t i ons forpurpos es of 18 U

. S. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g) ( 1) , as cons t rued byt he Supr eme C our ti n Sm a llv . U ni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U
. S
. 3 8 5 (20 0 5 ). T o th e c o n tra ry , co n sis ten t w ith th e tre a tm e n t o f P u e rto R ico in ot hercont ext s , i t s co n v ic t i ons ar e pr oper l yvi ew ed as “domesti c” co n v ict ion s tha t C o n g ress i nt ended t o i ncl ude among t he pr edi cat es t hat t r i gger §922( g) ( 1) ’ s pr ohi bi t i ons. T he D i stri ctC ou rtt hu s proper l yde ni e d app e l l ant’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss h is in d ictm e n t. AF F I RMED
.