NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0824n.06 No. 10-1745 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

L ORTZ , L I MI TED, d/b/a Midwest Or dnance , Petitioner-Appellant,

v. CURTI S W. GI L BERT, Direc tor of I ndustry Oper ations, Detroit Field Division, Bur eau of Alcohol, Tobac co, F irea

rms & E x plosives, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : GUY, KETH L EDGE, a nd WHI TE, Circuit J udg es. KETHL EDGE, Circuit J udg e. The Gun Control Act direc t s t h e At torney Gene ral of the United States t o gra n t an application for a fede ral firea rms license only if the applicant has not “willfully violated any of the provisions” of the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)( 1). L ortz, L imited, the holder of a federa l firea

rms license, app l i ed to rene w i ts license in 2002. The Bure au of Alcohol, Tobac co, Fire arms and Ex plosive s (ATF ) denied L ortz’s application in 2007 on sever al g rounds, including that a manag er at L ortz, Victor Reid Sr., had previously willfully violated the Gun Control Ac t

. An administrative hear ing office r upheld ATF ’s denial. L ortz then filed this suit in distr i ct court, which g rante d summary judgme nt to the ag ency . L ortz ha s not pr esente d a g enuine issue of materia l fac t to show that the Attorney Gene ral lacke d authority to deny its application, so we aff irm.No. 10-1745

Lortz v. Gilbert We revie w the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt de novo. Appalachian Res. Dev

. Corp. v. McCabe , 387 F.3d 461, 463 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Under the Gun Control Ac t, w e also revie w the Attorney Gene ral’s licensing decision de novo, but limit our revie w to the question whether the Attorney Gene ral wa s “author ized to deny the application.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(f) (3). Even a sing le prior violation of the statute a uthorizes denial. Appalachian Res. , 387 F.3d at 464. I t is not seriously disputed that Reid Sr. previously willfully violated the Gun Control Act—a fede ral district court deter mined as much in 2001. Trader Vic’s Ltd. v. O’Neill , 169 F. Supp. 2d 957, 965 (N.D. I nd. 2 0 0 1 ). What is contested is the di strict court’s determination t hat R eid S r. was an “applica nt” for purposes of L ortz’s application, in light of section 923(d)( 1)(B ). That p ro v i sion states that “applica

nt” includes, “in the case of a corpor ation, partne rship or association, any individual possessing, direc tly or indirectly , the power to direc t or cause the direc tion of the manag ement and policie s of the cor poration.” Id. The undisputed evidenc e in the rec ord, including the sworn testimony of L oretta Reid—Reid Sr.’s wife and the owner of L ortz—collectively establishes that Reid Sr. was a statutory “applica nt”

on L ortz’s application. The company listed Reid Sr. as an office r on its 2005 fede ral income tax return and as a “mana g er” on numerous other tax forms. That the Reids made these desig nations to achie ve pref

era ble tax treatment is irrele vant—they signe d the forms under penalty of p er j u ry . Moreove r, L oretta Reid testified that Reid Sr. independe ntly hired a L ortz employ ee, participated in selling firea

rms and deciding which firea rms to acquir e for resa le, and had chec k-writing authority for L ortz. (A.R. 323–26.) That ATF was awa re of Reid Sr.’s involvement with L ortz sever al y ear s prior to denying its application is also irrele vant—Reid Sr.’s adjudication as a willful violator only -2-No. 10-1745

Lortz v. Gilbert beca me final one y ear befor e L ortz a pplied to r enew its lice nse. Be cause there is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg arding Reid Sr.’s manag ement-le vel role in L ortz, the Attorney General was authorized to deny

L ortz’s application. L ortz also argues that ATF ’s ref usal to rene w its license violates the statute of limit ations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. That statute provides that “an action, suit or proce eding for the e nforc ement of any civil fine, penalty , or forf eiture, pecunia

ry or otherwise, shall not be enter tained unless

commence d within five y ear s from the date whe n the claim first a ccr ued[.] ” B ut it was L ortz, not ATF , that commence d these pro cee dings by filing its rene wal application. And the denial of a fe d er al firea

rms license is not an action to enfor ce a penalty

. See Barany v. Van Haelst , No

. 1 1

- 35005, 2011 WL 5056462, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2 0 1 1). So section 2462 does not apply to this

case . The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.

-3-