## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 2182 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G R EG G S. S TEIN , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 11- CR-184

—WilliamC. G riesbach, Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 12, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 19, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, R O V NE R a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . Greg g S tei n appeals h is convi cti on f or posse ssi ng a fi re ar m f ol l owing a m isd em eanorco nvi ctio n for a cr im e o f d om es tic vio len c e. See 1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 22( g) (9). H e a rgues that he shoul d have be en al l owed to i nt ro d u ce e vi dence attr i alsupporting a propos ed d efe n se that hi s l aw yeri n the dom est i c- vi ol ence pros ecuti on had l ed hi m to bel i ev e that the m i sdem eanor co nvicti o n wo ul d no t di squa l i fy hi m fr o m po ss es sing2 N o. 12

- 2182 fi re ar m s. Because the di str i ct c ourt c or re ctl y r el i ed on tw o de c i s i o ns fr o m t hi s c o ur ti n r ej e c t i ngs uc h e v i dence as i rr el evant, we affi rm the j ud gm ent. St ein pl eaded gui l ty to m i sdem eanorbat ter y in W i sc on sin , seeW IS
. S T AT . § 940. 19( 1) , afterhe s tr uck his l i vei n g i r l f r i en d i n 2 00 8, b r ea k i ngt wo o fhe r teetha nd brui si ng herf ace. A s par t o fS tei n’s pl ea bar gai n, the sta te pros ecuto r dism i sse d a dom est i c- abuse surch ar ge that n or m ally w ou ld ap p ly. See W IS
. S T AT . § 973.055. Stei n’s at to r ne y s ta te d a t th e pl ea he ar i ngtha t he b el i ev ed th e gu ilty p lea w ith ou t t h e s u rc h ar ge w ou ld p r o t e c t Ste in f r o m the fede r alb an on gun po ss es si o n f o r pe r so ns c o nvic te d of a m isd em ea n or d om es tic -vio le n c e c rim e. See 18 U

. S. C. § 9 22 (g) ( 9)

. S tei n, an a vi d hun ter, wanted to pr eser ve the abi l i ty to p oss ess and use guns. H i s a tto rney ad vised i n op en c o u r t th at “h e m ay ha ve som e d if

fi cul ty pu rchas i ng a w eapon” afterhi s ba tte ryco nvi cti on, but that he would n ot v iola te federa l l aw by posses si ng and usi ng the guns th at he a l re ady o w ned. That a d v i c e p r o mpt e d th e s t a t e j u d g e t o w ar n S t e i n, h o weve r, that “there ’ s no guar antee s” he co uld poss ess g uns a fte r hi s co nv i ct i o n. S tei n w as se nt en ce d t o t wo y ea r s’ pr o ba ti o n, a nd o ne co ndi ti o n o fhi s se nt ence was tha t he no t po ss es s g uns w hi l e o n s up e r v i s i o n. Ata h e a r i ngi n 2 0 0 9 o n hi s r e quest f orea rly t er m i nati on o fhi s probati on, S tei n re cei ved new i nfo rm ati on m aki ng i t cl earthath is atto rneyhad gi ven hi m bad advi ce. St ei n had wanted the fi re ar m ban l i fte d in ti m e f o r the upc o m i nghun tings ea so n, b utthe pr o se cut o r a ss er ted th atfede r all aw s ti l l woul d pr ev en tN o. 12

- 2182 3 hi m fr o m po ss es singg uns a fter hi s pr o ba ti o n e nde d. The sta te j ud ge agr eed. I n an appare nt r efer ence to U nited Sta tes v. Ha yes , 55 5 U .S

. 41 5 ( 2009 ) , the j ud ge expla i ned that a deci si on r el eas ed afterS tei n’s se nt en c in g c l ar i fi es that th e p redica te sta te offense need not denom i nate a dom est i c r el ati onshi p as a st atuto ry e l em ent in or der to m eetthe re quir em ents of§ 922( g) ( 9). S ee Ha yes , 55 5 U

. S. at42 5- 26. A fte r h is p ro b at ion en d ed , St ein ale rt ed fed er al a u th or iti es t o hi s pr o hib i t e d s t a t us whe n he c o mpl e t ed an A T F Form 4473 in an ticipation of taking p ossess ion of a r i fl e he wonat a s po r ts b an que t. One que st i o n o n the f or m as ks w hetherthe appli cant ha s be en co nvi cted o f a m i sde m ea no r cr i m e o f do m es ti c vi o l en ce, expl aini ng that such pers on s ar e pr ohibi ted byfedera l l aw fro m p ossess i ngg uns . S te i n a ns wer ed y es t o thi s que st i o n. He w as de ni e d p e r mi s s i o n t o o b t a i n the r i fl e , a nd a speci alag ent fro m the Bu re au ofA l cohol, Tob ac co, Fi re arm s an d E x p losi ves visited his hou se to d eli ver a l ett erco n firm i ng hi s pro hibi ted st atus. S tei n adm i tte d to the a gen t that he posse sse d otherguns, and al though he was re l uctant to re l i nquish po ss ess i on, he a gr eed to tr ansferthe gu n s t o hi s m othe r’ s ho use. H e l ate r w as charg ed und er§ 922( g) ( 9) w ith unl aw ful posse ssi on o f fi re ar m s. I n prepar i ng f ortr i alS tein’s new at torney s ought a r ul i ngtha t woul d a l l o w hi m t o i nt r o du ce evide nc e an d have the j u ry i nstr ucted conce rni ng S tei n’s purport ed ign orance ofhi s pro hibi ted st atus. S tei n conte nd ed that he c o ul d no t be f o und gui l tyo f“ k no wi ng l y ” vi o l at i ngthe4 N o. 12

- 2182 fed er al b an on gu n p os se ss ion , see 18 U

. S. C

. § 924(a)(2) , i fhe was unaw ar e o fhi s pro hib ite d status und er § 9 22( g) ( 9)

. H e th ou gh t he co uld s how thathi s l aw yer in th e s ta te ca se h a d m isa d vis ed h im th at h e w ou ld s t i l l b e abl e t o p o s s e s s a g unwi tho utv i o l a t i ngfe der al l aw, an d th us he di d no t ha ve th e r equi r ed mens r e a f o r u nl a wfulp o s s e s s i o n. T he di s t r i c tj udge r ul e d, how eve r, that e vi dence co ncer ni ng S tei n’s kno w l edge of h i s l e g a l st at u s w as irre lev an t a n d als o rej ec te d h is propos ed j ury i nstr ucti on. S tei n then pro c eeded to a b e nc h t r i a l i n o r de r t o p r e s e r v e the s e i s s ues fo r a ppeal

. H e s ti pu l ate d that hi s W i sco nsi n batt er y offense m eet s the federa l defi ni ti on o fa m i sde m ea n or dom est i cvi o l e nc e c r i me a nd tha tthe g un s h e p o s s e s s e d h ad tr avel ed i n i nter sta te com m erc e b ef or e they c am e into hi s po ss es si o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und St ein gui l tya nd se nt en ce d hi m t o 2 y ea r s’ pr o ba ti o n. On app ealS tei n m ai ntai n s th at he sho uld have bee n allo w ed to p re se n t e vid en c e c on c er n in g h is lac k of k n ow ledge about hi s pro hibi ted st atus. H e a c kn ow l edges th at tw o op in ion s from t h i s c o u rt, U nited Sta tes v. Lee Wi l s on , 4 37F

. 3d 61 6, 6 20 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( interp r et i ng 1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ) , a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Car l t on Wi l s on , 15 9 F

. 3d 28 0, 2 88

- 89 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( i nt er pr et i ng § 9 22( g) ( 8) ) , sugg estthatthe m ens re a e l em ent o f§ 922( g) i s sa ti sfi ed bykno wi ngpo ss es si o n o f th e g un a nd d oes not requ ire p roof th at th e d efend an t w as aw are ofhi s s tatus as a p ro hibi ted per son. S tei n never thel es s ar g ue s, ci ting th e di ss en ting o pi ni on i n Carl t on Wi l s on , that § 922(g)( 9) shou ld be con s t r u ed to requ ire k n o wl e d g e th a to n e ’ s g u n p o s s e s s i o n vi o l a t e s th e l a w.N o. 12

- 2182 5 See 15 9 F

. 3d at2 93 ( Pos ne r, C. J

. , di ss en ting ) ( “I t i s wro ng to convi ct a per son ofa cri m e i fhe ha d no r eason to b e l i e v e tha tthe a c t f o r wh i c h he wa s c o nv i c t e d was a crim e, or even that i t w as w rongfu l. ”). S te i n s ee k s to di st i ng ui shb o th Wi l s on deci si ons by diff er enti ati ng per sons convi c ted o fa m i sdem eanor cri m e o fdom est i c vi ol ence, 18 U

. S.C . § 92 2( g) ( 9) , fro m th o se who v i o l at e o th ers ub se ct i o ns o f§ 9 22 ( g ) , i nc l udi ng felo n s, id. § 9 22 (g)(1 ), fu g i tiv es , id. § 92 2( g ) ( 2) , unl awful u se rs of co n tr olle d su b st an c es , id. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 3) , and pe r so ns c om m itt ed to a m en ta l ins tit u tio n, i d. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 4 )

. He ar g ue s th atthe se o th erc l as se s o fpr o hibi te d pe r so ns kn ow abou t the ir stat u s , e ith er beca us e the f actu al ci rcum sta nc es a re o bvi ous o r because the j ud ge i s r equi re d to enga ge i n an e xtensi ve col l oquy with the defe nd ant. Thu s, he c onti nues, per so n s convi cted under o thersubse cti o ns o f§ 9 22 ( g ) a r e l es s l i k el y t o b e una war e o fthe c olla te ra l c o n se q u en c es an d loss of ce rt ain righ ts . In co nt r as t, S te i n a ss er ts , he was aff irmat i ve l y t o l d dur i ng h is p lea h ea rin g in st at e c ou rtth at h is c on vic t ion w ou ld nott r i g g e r th e fe d e r a l fi r e a r m b a n . Wh a ti s t e l l i n g, h o wev er, i s th atS te i n do es no t di st i ngui sh p erso ns c o nvi cted o fm isd em eanorcr i m es ofdom est i c vi ol ence f ro m th ose su bj ect to a d om estic-relati ons rest r aining ord er, see18 U

. S. C. § 922( g) ( 8)

. The bas es f ordi squal i fi cati on u n d er su b se c tio n s (g )(9) an d (g)(8 ) are sim ilar , an d y e t in C a rlt on Wi l s on w e rej ec te d th e s am e t h eo ry th at Ste in prese nts he re and concl ud ed that f orsubse cti on ( g) ( 8) “kno wi ng l y ” m ea ns kno wl edg e o fthe f ac ts c o ns tituti ng th e o ff en se , no t k no wl edg e th attho se f ac ts make g un p os se ss ion illega l. 15 9 F .3 d a t 2 88 -89 ; see also U nited Sta tes6 N o. 12

- 2182

v . S h e l t on , 3 25 F. 3d 553, 56 3 ( 5th Ci r. 20 03) ( “W e per cei ve no princi ple d rea son f ordrawing an analyti caldi st in ction betw een § 922(g)( 8) and § 922(g)( 9). ”). The S upr eme Co ur t ha s ex pl aine d, i n i nt er pr et in gthe k no wl edg e el ementof§ 92 4( a) , tha t “ unl es s th e te xto fthe st a t ut e di c t a t e s a di ffe r e ntr e s ul t, the t e r m ‘ k no wi ng l y’ m er el y r equi re s p ro of o fkno w l edge o fthe f acts that const i tute the o ff ense. ” See B rya n v . U n i t e d S ta tes , 52 4 U. S

. 1 84, 1 92

- 93 ( 19 98 )

. W e relie d o n Brya n wh en an aly zin g § 9 22 (g)(8 ), s e eCar l t on Wi l s on , 159 F. 3d at 288- 89, a nd Brya n e qua l l y s uppo r ts the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nc l usi on i n thi s c a s e . Add i t i o na l l y, s e v e r a l o the r c i r c ui t s h ave hel d that § 92 2( g) ( 9) r equi re s o nl y know l ed ge o ff acts
. Se eSh e l t on , 325 F.3d at56 3; U nited S ta te s v. Hancock, 23 1 F.3 d 55 7, 56 2-6 3 (9 th C ir. 20 00 ); U nite d State s v. H utzel l , 21 7 F .3d 96 6, 96 7-6 8 (8 th C ir. 20 00 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M it chel l , 20 9 F

. 3d 319, 32 2 ( 4th Ci r. 20 00 ); U nited Sta tes v. B eav ers , 206 F.3d 706 , 708-10 (6th C ir. 2000). U lti m ately, a s a m atter of statu tory con stru ction, there i s no reas on t o thi nk Congr ess i ntended “knowingl y” to m ean di ff er ent thi ngs fordi ffer ent s ubsect i ons of § 9 22 (g). See R a tz la

f v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 51 0 U.S

. 13 5, 14 3 (1994) (“A term ap p earing in severa l p laces in a statu t ory t e xti s g e ne r a l l y r e a d the s a me wa y e a c h t i m e i ta ppea rs . . . . W e hav e e ven s tr onge r cause to const rue a si ngleform ula ti on . . . the sam e way e ach ti m e i t i s ca l l ed in to p lay .”); U nited Sta tes v. B utler, 63 7 F. 3d 519, 52 4 ( 5th Cir

. 20 11) ( concl ud i ng tha t “ i t would be i l l ogi cal ” t o i m po se a di ff er ent m en s r ea r equi r emento n di ffer en t subsecti ons of§ 922( g) )

. W e hav e hel d repeat edl y thatN o. 12

- 2182 7 the word “know i ngl y” m ade appli cabl e t o § 9 22( g) by § 924( a) ( 2) re quir es knowle dge of the f actualele m ents of t h e o ffen se an d n ot h in g m or e. Se eLe eWi l s on , 43 7 F

. 3d at 62 0 (fe lon s); Carl t on Wi l s on , 1 59 F. 3d at2 89 ( per so ns s u b je c t t o a p ro te c tiv e o rd er ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bal l e nt i ne, 4 F .3d 50 4, 5 0 6 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 93 ) (fu git ive s); see also U nited State s v. O bie chie, 3 8 F

. 3d 3 09 , 3 15 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( ho l di ng th at“ ‘ k no wi ng l y ’ i n § 9 24 ( a) ( 1) refer s o nl y t o the i nt en t to do the act that i s pro scr ibed by l aw , a s op p os ed to th e inten tional viol ation of a know n legal du ty”). A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

3- 19- 13