N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM KR ISSTOFER W OLF, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30065

D.C . No. 1:15-c r-00049-SPW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 12, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, B E A, a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Following a

jury tria l, W illia

m Krisstofe r W olf wa s c onvic te d of: (1) ille ga l posse s sion of a

m a c hine gun (a

n Iz hm a sh, M ode l Sa iga -12, 12 ga uge shotgun), in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(o); a nd (2) posse s sion of this sa m e fire arm , whic h 

# F IL ED MAY24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).wa s not re giste re d to him in the Nationa l Fire arm s R e gistra t ion a nd Tra n s fe r R e c ord, in viola

tion of 26 U.S.C . §§ 5841 a nd 5871. W olf wa s se nte nc e d to 72
m onths im

p risonm e nt. W olf tim e l y a ppe a l e d his judgme nt of c o nvic tion a nd
se nte nc e . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. First, be c a

use a ruling on a

m otion in limine

is a pre lim i na

ry opinion tha

t fa lls within the

disc re tion of thedistric t

c o urt, Luc ev . Unite d State s , 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984), W olf should ha ve a ppe a le d the distric t c ourt’ s rulings from his
re ne we d obje c t ions to the a dm ission of the

e vide nc e at tria l. Howe ve r, W olf did
re ne w his obje c tions a

t tria l, the re fore pre se rving theissue for a ppe a l. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing W olf’ s m otion in limine a s untim e ly . W olf doe s not de m onstra t e good c a

u se to justify

his untime ly filing. S e eShotw e ll Mfg. C

o . v . Unite d State

s , 371 U.S. 341, 362-64 (1963). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

sta ting its inte ntion to a dm it W o lf’ s sta te m e nts ove r his Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 403 obje c tions a

t the pre tria l c onfe re nc e . At tria l, W olf a rgue d tha t: (1) he wa s e ntra ppe d by the gove rnm e nt; a

nd (2) he did not ha

ve the ne c e s sa

ry me ns re a (he
c la im e d he la c ke d knowle dge tha t the gun wa s fully

a ut om atic and tha

t it ha d a shorte ne d ba

rre l). The gove rnm e nt ha d the burde n to de m onstra te tha t W o lf kne w the fire arm

wa s fully a utom at ic and ha d a

shorte ne d ba

rre l. Se eUnite d State

s v . 2Montoy a-Gax iola , 796 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th C ir. 2015). Evidenc e of W olf’ s

sta te m e nts a bout his pla

n to e nga ge in a

n upc o m ing wa

r with thegove rnm e nt a

nd his de sire to obta in powe rful we a pons to fight in tha

t c onflic t, wa s proba

tive of his knowle dge , m otive , inte nt, a nd a bse nc e of m ista

ke , a nd wa s not substa

ntia lly outwe ighe d by

a risk of unfa ir pre

judic e . In a ddition, the

distric t c ourt did not c o m m it pla in e rror by

not suppre ssing W olf’ s sta

te m e nts a s spe e c h prote c te d by the First Am e ndm e nt. The First Am e ndm e nt is not a

n e vide ntia

ry rule of e xc lusion. Se e W isc onsin v . Mitc he ll , 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993) (“ The First Am e ndm e nt . . . doe s not prohibit the e vide ntia ry use of spe e c h

to e sta blish thee le m e nts of a c rim e or to prove m otive or inte nt.” ). He re , W olf wa s not prose c ute d a nd c onvic te d ba se d on his spe e c h. R athe r, the gove rnm e nt use d a spe c ts of W o lf’ s sta te m e nts a s e vide nc e of his sta te of m ind, inte nt, pre disposition, la

c k of re luc ta

nc e to c o m

m it the offe nse , a

nd a bse nc e of
m ista ke
. Se c ond, the e vide n c e pre se nte d at tria l supports the

jury ’ s finding tha

t W olf
wa s not e ntra

ppe d by the a c tions of thegove rnm e nt a ge nts. Spe c ific a l ly , the
e vide nc e supports the

jury ’ s findings tha

t: (1) W olf wa s not induc e d to purc ha se the fully -a

utom atic shotgun with a shorte n e d ba rre l; a nd (2) W olf wa s pre dispose d to c o m m it the c rim e . Se eUnite d State s v . Mohamud

, 843 F.3d 420, 432 (9th C ir.
32016) (“ To a void a finding of e ntra

pm e nt, the gove rnm e nt m ust provetha

t : (1) [the de fe nda nt] wa s pre dispose d to c om m it the c rim e be fore gove rnm e nt a g e nts
c onta c te d him , or (2) gove rnm e nt a ge nts did not induc e him to c om m it the
c rim e .” ). Third, W olf c ha lle nge s his 72-m onth se nte n c e , whic h re sulte d from a 21-m onth upwa

rd va rianc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a). The distric t c ourt did not de pa rt upwa rd from the G u ide l ine s ra

nge , but ra

the r varie d upwa

rd pursua nt to § 3553(a ). Se e Irizarry

v . Unite d State

s , 553 U.S. 708, 714 (2008) (“ ‘ De p arture ’ is a te rm of a rt unde r the Guide line s a

nd re fe rs only to non-Guide line s se nte nc e s im pose d unde r the fram e work se t out in the Guide line s.” ). The distric t c ourt use d the fa c t tha

t the fire arm

ha d m ultiple ille ga l fe at

ure s a s one ba sis, a

m ong m any , for
an upwa rd va rian c e whe n

looking a t the nat ure and c irc um sta

n c e s of the offe nse unde r § 3553(a ). It wa s c orre c t for the distric t c ourt to c onside r the inc re a se d da nge rousne ss a

nd dua l ille ga lity

of the fire arm . S

e e 18 U.S.C . § 3661. W o lf’ s 72-m onth se nte nc e is re a sona ble and not gre at e r tha

n ne c e ssa ry . AFFIRM E D.

4