PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 11-4992

BRUCE JAMES ABRAMSKI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge.

(7:10-cr-00068-GEC-1)

Argued: December 4, 2012

Decided: January 23, 2013

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Shedd and Judge Davis joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Rhonda Lee Overstreet, OVERSTREET SLOAN,

PLLC, Bedford, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Ernest

Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William H.

Cleaveland, WILLIAM H. CLEAVELAND, PLC, Roanoke,

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court, October 15, 2013 

Affirmed by Supreme Court, June 16, 2014 
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States

Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Roanoke, Virginia; Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, John D. Buretta, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

On November 17, 2009, in purchasing a Glock 19 handgun

for his uncle in Pennsylvania, Bruce James Abramski, Jr.,

assured the firearms dealer in Virginia that he was the "actual

buyer" of the handgun. Abramski was thereafter charged with

being an illegal "straw purchaser" of the firearm. Pursuant to

conditional pleas of guilty, Abramski was convicted in the

Western District of Virginia on June 29, 2011, for two firearm

offenses: (1) making a false statement that was material to the

lawfulness of a firearm sale, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(a)(6); and (2) making a false statement with respect to

information required to be kept in the records of a licensed

firearms dealer — that is, that he was the actual buyer of the

firearm, when in fact he was buying it for someone else — in

contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). 

Prior to his guilty pleas, the district court denied Abramski’s motions to dismiss the charges and suppress evidence.

Abramski appeals from the criminal judgment, maintaining

that the court erred in two respects. First, he argues that the

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment

because his conduct was beyond the purview of §§ 922(a)(6)

and 924(a)(1)(A), in that both he and his uncle were legally

entitled to purchase and own the Glock 19 handgun. Second,

he contends that the court erred in denying his motion to sup2 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
press on the ground that inculpatory evidence had been

unconstitutionally seized from his residence. As explained

below, we reject Abramski’s contentions of error and affirm.

I.

The facts underlying Abramski’s convictions are undisputed. Prior to November 2009, Abramski, who lived in

Franklin County, Virginia, and his uncle, Angel Alvarez, who

resided in Pennsylvania, had several conversations concerning

Alvarez’s desire to obtain a Glock 19 handgun. Abramski

offered to purchase a Glock 19 for Alvarez because, as a former Virginia police officer, Abramski could obtain a favorable price from a firearms dealer that catered to police officers

in Collinsville, Virginia. Before purchasing the handgun,

Abramski spoke with three licensed federal firearms dealers

and discussed how to legally conduct such an acquisition. The

dealers apparently advised Abramski, in essence, that a

licensed dealer in Pennsylvania could complete the transfer to

his uncle after the handgun had been purchased by Abramski

in Virginia. In order to implement the transaction, Alvarez

sent Abramski a check for $400 on November 15, 2009. The

term "Glock 19 handgun" was written in the memo line of the

check. 

On November 17, 2009, Abramski went to the firearms

dealer in Collinsville and purchased a Glock 19 handgun,

among other items, paying for them with more than $2000 in

cash. In conducting the transaction, Abramski completed

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

("ATF") Form 4473, which contained several questions about

the purchase of firearms, to be answered by checking boxes

marked "Yes" or "No." Of importance here, question 11.a. on

the ATF Form 4473 stated:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)

listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual

buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 3
of another person. If you are not the actual buyer,

the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

J.A. 585 (emphasis on Form 4473).1 Abramski checked the

answer "Yes" to question 11.a. Three days later, on November

20, 2009, the $400 check from Alvarez was deposited in

Abramski’s bank account, and the next day Abramski transferred the Glock 19 handgun to Alvarez at a licensed federal

firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania. At that time, Alvarez

gave Abramski a receipt confirming the transfer, reflecting

that Alvarez had purchased the Glock 19 handgun for $400.

Meanwhile, on November 12, 2009, a bank robbery

occurred at Franklin Community Bank in Rocky Mount, Virginia. An investigation of the robbery led the FBI to suspect

Abramski. Abramski had been fired from the Roanoke police

department in 2007, looked similar to the masked bank robber, and was down on his luck (Abramski and his wife had

recently separated and their home was in foreclosure). 

Abramski was arrested in early July 2010 on state law

charges relating to the bank robbery. In connection therewith,

two FBI agents investigating the robbery sought and secured

search warrants relating to the investigation. The first warrant

was issued on July 1, 2010, for the search of a home on Highland Farm Road in Calloway, Virginia, where Abramski’s

parents lived, and where Abramski had moved a short time

earlier. The "items to be seized" included things believed to

be related to the bank robbery, such as a black square duffle

bag, a black ski mask, firearms, and the catch-all phrase covering "[a]ny and all articles that appear to be relevant to the

commission of a robbery." J.A. 224. The second search warrant was obtained about three weeks later, on July 19, 2010,

for a home on Iron Ridge Road in Rocky Mount, Virginia,

which was Abramski’s marital residence. This warrant speci1Citations herein to "J.A. ____" refer to the contents of the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. 

4 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
fied some of the same items as the first warrant and also

included the same catch-all phrase. In executing the search

warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property, agents found and

seized a green Franklin Community Bank zippered bag containing the written receipt confirming the transfer of the

Glock 19 handgun from Abramski to Alvarez on November

21, 2009.

The federal authorities have never charged Abramski with

bank robbery, and the state bank robbery charges against him

were dismissed on October 15, 2010. On November 18, 2010,

however, the federal grand jury indicted Abramski for the

firearms offenses underlying this appeal. A corrective superseding indictment that apparently only deleted information

about the firearms dealer was returned on May 12, 2011. The

superseding indictment (hereinafter the "indictment") charged

Abramski, in Count One, with making the false and fictitious

statement on the ATF Form 4473 that he was the actual buyer

of the Glock handgun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)

and § 924 (a)(2).2 Count Two of the indictment charged

2Count One of the indictment alleged, in relevant part, as follows: 

On or about November 17, 2009, in the Western Judicial District

of Virginia, the defendant, BRUCE JAMES ABRAMSKI, JR., in

connection with his acquisition of a firearm, a Glock Model 19,

9 mm semi-automatic pistol, from a federally licensed firearms

dealer, did knowingly make a false and fictitious written statement to said dealer, which statement was likely to deceive said

dealer, as to a fact material to the lawfulness of such sale of the

said firearm to the defendant, BRUCE JAMES ABRAMSKI, JR.,

under chapter 44 of Title 18, in that the defendant, BRUCE

JAMES ABRAMSKI, JR., represented that he was the actual

buyer of the firearm, when in fact, as the defendant . . . then well

knew, he was buying the firearm for another individual [in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2)]. 

J.A. 381. 

Section 922(a)(6) provides, in relevant part, 

[It shall be unlawful] for any person in connection with the acquisition of . . . any firearm . . . knowingly to make any false or fictiUNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 5
Abramski with making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a licensed firearms dealer, in violation of § 924(a)(1)(A).3

 In both charges,

the prosecution relied on the theory that Abramski was merely

a "straw purchaser" of the firearm that was immediately transferred to Alvarez.4

On March 10, 2011, Abramski moved to dismiss both

counts of the indictment (the "first dismissal motion"), contending that, because the firearm was legally transferred to

tious oral or written statement . . . intended or likely to deceive

such . . . dealer . . . with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale[.] 

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Section 924(a)(2) of Title 18 provides for punishment of a person who has violated § 922(a)(6) by both fine and imprisonment. 

3Count Two of the indictment alleged, in relevant part, as follows: 

BRUCE JAMES ABRAMSKI, JR., knowingly made a false

statement and representation in connection with his acquisition of

a firearm, to a federally licensed firearms dealer, with respect to

information required by the provisions of Chapter 44 of Title 18,

United States Code, to be kept in the records of Town Police

Supply, in that [he] represented that he was the actual buyer of

the firearm, when in fact, as the defendant, BRUCE JAMES

ABRAMSKI, JR., then well knew, he was buying the firearm for

another individual [in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)]. 

J.A. 382. 

Section 924(a)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, 

[It shall be unlawful to] knowingly make[ ] any false statement

or representation with respect to the information required by this

chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this

chapter[.] 

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). 

4A "straw purchase" of a firearm has been described as a sale where the

individual making the purchase represents himself to be the actual buyer,

but is actually the agent of another person who will receive possession of

the firearm. See United States v. Nelson, 221 F.3d 1206, 1208-09 (11th

Cir. 2000). 

6 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
Alvarez and Abramski made no material misrepresentations

to the Virginia firearms dealer, the firearms statutes were

never intended to punish his conduct. Also on March 10,

2011, Abramski moved to suppress the receipt found in the

money bag in his home, arguing that its seizure was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.5

 The district court

denied both these motions from the bench on March 14, 2011.

See J.A. 276, 310-11. The court ruled, first of all, that 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) were violated when a

false or fictitious statement is made on an ATF Form 4473,

and, second, that the search warrant for Abramski’s home was

amply supported by probable cause. In any event, according

to the court, seizure of the receipt was proper under the good

faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 

On April 18, 2011, after the court had denied his first dismissal motion and his initial motion to suppress, Abramski

filed a second motion to dismiss the indictment (the "second

dismissal motion"). He therein contended that question 11.a.

on the ATF Form 4473 is not required by law (but was created by the ATF) and that, inasmuch as the ATF itself decided

that the "actual buyer" of a firearm must be ascertained at the

time of acquisition, the ATF had failed to comply with the

notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. After conducting a hearing on the second

dismissal motion on April 22, 2011, the district court rejected

that motion by a published decision filed on April 25, 2011.

See United States v. Abramski, 778 F.Supp.2d 678, 680 (W.

D. Va. 2011) (determining that disclosure of actual firearm

purchaser is required by law). Notably, Abramski does not

5

In his March 10, 2011, motion to suppress, Abramski incorrectly

asserted that the receipt had been seized during execution of the search

warrant for the Highland Farm Road property. See J.A. 220-21. During the

March 14, 2011, court hearing, however, Abramski orally amended his

motion to suppress to challenge the constitutionality of the second warrant, the one dedicated to the Iron Ridge Road property, where the receipt

was actually seized. See id. at 261. 

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 7
appeal the court’s denial of the second dismissal motion.6

 On

June 27, 2011, Abramski filed a second motion to suppress,

asserting that, after the denial of his first motion to suppress,

he discovered evidence that undermined the credibility of a

witness who had provided information concerning the search

warrants. See J.A. 385. The court denied this suppression

motion from the bench following an evidentiary hearing conducted on June 27, 2011, and the second motion to suppress

is not relevant to this appeal. See J.A. 514.

On June 29, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement with the

United States Attorney, Abramski entered conditional guilty

pleas, pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to both charges in the indictment.7

 On October

3, 2011, the court sentenced Abramski to five years of probation on each offense, to run concurrently. Abramski thereafter

filed a timely notice of appeal. 

II.

We review de novo legal issues relating to statutory construction. United States v. Broncheau, 645 F.3d 676, 683 (4th

6From our assessment of the briefs, the government appears to consider

the district court’s denial of the second dismissal motion to be a subject

of this appeal. See Br. of Appellee 6 (citing district court’s April 25, 2011,

decision denying second dismissal motion). We emphasize, however, that

Abramski has, on the dismissal point, only appealed the denial of his first

dismissal motion, which was disposed of from the bench on March 14,

2011. See Br. of Appellant 3 (recognizing that Abramski’s second dismissal motion was "based upon administrative deficiencies," and was

denied, and advising that "Abramski does not raise this issue on appeal").

7Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in

pertinent part, that: 

With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant

may enter a conditional plea of guilty[,] reserving in writing the

right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination

of a specified pretrial motion. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). 

8 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
Cir. 2011). In evaluating a district court’s denial of a motion

to suppress evidence, we review the court’s factual findings

for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United

States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460, 466 (4th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a probable cause issue with respect to a search warrant,

we assess whether the magistrate judge had a "substantial

basis" for concluding that probable cause existed. Illinois v.

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983).

III.

We must first address a potential procedural defect that

could impact our jurisdiction in this appeal. This court has

recognized that, pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, the "‘direct review of an

adverse ruling on a pretrial motion is available only if the

defendant expressly preserves that right by entering a conditional guilty plea.’" See United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641,

645 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Wiggins, 905

F.2d 51, 52 (4th Cir. 1990). Indeed, we have observed that,

"[a]bsent a valid conditional guilty plea, we will dismiss a

defendant’s appeal from an adverse pretrial ruling on a nonjurisdictional issue." Bundy, 392 F.3d at 645.

In order for a defendant to pursue an appeal after a Rule

11(a)(2) conditional guilty plea, the relevant agreement must

be in writing and must identify the specific pretrial rulings

that the defendant intends to appeal. These requirements serve

to "document that a particular plea was in fact conditional,

and . . . identify precisely what pretrial issues have been preserved for appellate review." Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 advisory

committee’s note. As we have explained, the "conditions must

be expressly described in writing, or at least so clearly shown

on the record that there is no doubt that a conditional plea was

agreed to." Bundy, 392 F.3d at 645.

Abramski’s plea agreement identifies only one adverse ruling that he intends to appeal, and that ruling was made on

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 9
June 28, 2011, the day prior to his guilty pleas. The plea

agreement describes the conditional nature of his guilty pleas

as follows:

I understand that the United States consents to my

making of a conditional plea of guilty in this case in

accordance with Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure. I reserve the right to appeal

any and all adverse rulings of the court to date, to

specifically include the court’s oral ruling at a

charge conference in chambers yesterday, June 28,

that the subsequent legal transfer of the firearm in

question from the defendant Abramski to his uncle

Angel "Danny" Alvarez, in Pennsylvania, does not

negate the illegality of the defendant’s acts in acquiring the firearm from a federally licensed firearm

dealer in Virginia.

J.A. 575 (handwritten additions emphasized). Although the

issue resolved by the first dismissal motion is fairly framed in

the plea agreement, the agreement misidentifies the ruling at

the June 28 charge conference, rather than the court’s denial

of the first dismissal motion, as the issue sought to be

appealed. Perhaps more significantly, an appeal of the suppression rulings is not mentioned in the plea agreement. 

During the plea hearing, the issues reserved for appeal were

not specified on the record, although the district court and the

prosecutors briefly discussed alterations of the plea agreement, presumably for the purpose of specifying issues that

could be appealed. The court suggested the following: 

if it makes it any simpler, why don’t you just change

[the conditional plea] to read that the defendant

reserves the right to appeal all pretrial legal rulings

that the Court has made? Why is it necessary that we

have more complicated language? Couldn’t you just

agree to that?

10 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
J.A. 520. In response, the government agreed to the court’s

suggestion. Based on this dialogue, it is evident that the parties anticipated that the defendant could appeal court rulings

other than the single one specified in the plea agreement. Rule

11(a)(2) and our precedent are clear, however, that the issues

to be appealed after a conditional guilty plea should be specified in writing, or, at the very least, clearly stated on the

record. Nevertheless, because the court and the government

orally agreed in broad terms to Abramski’s conditional pleas,

we are satisfied to address the merits of his appeal on the first

dismissal motion and the first motion to suppress. Accordingly, we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

A.

1.

Abramski first contends that the district court erred in

denying his motion to dismiss the charges in the indictment,

and in ruling that Abramski’s purchase of the Glock 19 handgun constituted a straw purchase that violated 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A). Abramski maintains that,

because he and Alvarez were both legally entitled to purchase

such a firearm, he was not a "straw purchaser" and his "Yes"

answer on the ATF Form 4473 — representing that he was

the "actual buyer" thereof — was not material and was never

intended to be punished by the Gun Control Act of 1968, or

by §§ 922(a)(6) or 924(a)(1)(A). Indeed, Abramski asserts

that Congress’s intent in enacting those statutes was "to make

it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not

legally entitled to possess them." Br. of Appellant 12. Under

Abramski’s theory, he could only be prosecuted for his Virginia acquisition of the Glock 19 handgun if Alvarez had been

ineligible to possess a firearm, e.g., a convicted felon, thereby

rendering the "actual buyer" question on the ATF Form 4473

"material to the lawfulness of the sale." See 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(a)(6). On the legal proposition pursued by Abramski,

there appears to be a split in the courts of appeals. At least

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 11
three of our sister circuits have heretofore addressed the issue,

and one of them seems to agree with Abramski. 

In support of his position, Abramski relies on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir.

1997). In that case, the court of appeals assessed whether

§ 922(a)(6) liability attached where "the true purchaser [here,

Alvarez] can lawfully purchase a firearm directly." Id. at 295.

The Fifth Circuit determined that it did not, ruling that 

the plain language of the statute compels the conclusion . . . that § 922(a)(6) criminalizes false statements that are intended to deceive federal firearms

dealers with respect to facts material to the "lawfulness of the sale" of firearms. . . . Thus, if the true

purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly,

§ 922(a)(6) liability (under a "straw purchase" theory) does not attach.

Id. (emphasis in original).

Put simply, we are unable to agree with Polk. It is clear to

us that the prohibition against false and fictitious statements

in § 922(a)(6) is not limited to those persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm. To establish a violation of § 922(a)(6), the prosecution is obligated to prove four

elements: "(1) the defendant knowingly made (2) a false or

fictitious oral or written statement that was (3) material to the

lawfulness of the sale or disposition of a firearm, and was (4)

intended to deceive or likely to deceive a firearms dealer."

United States v. Harvey, 653 F.3d 388, 393 (6th Cir. 2011).

The straw purchaser issue goes directly to the third of these

essential elements — materiality.

Abramski’s contention that § 922(a)(6) does not apply to a

firearm transaction involving two eligible purchasers was

recently rejected by the Sixth Circuit in United States v.

Morales, 687 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2012). In that case, the court

12 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
also took issue with the reasoning of Polk and agreed with the

Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Frazier, 605

F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir. 2010). In Frazier, the court of

appeals had likewise rejected Polk, explaining its decision in

language that we readily approve:

[t]o say that the identity of the actual purchaser is

material to the lawfulness of one sale but not to

another, is counterintuitive. Although Polk focused

on whether one’s identity affected the lawfulness of

a sale under § 922(a)(6), we focus on whether one’s

identity is a fact that is material to the lawfulness of

a sale. The identity of the purchaser is a constant

that is always material to the lawfulness of the purchase of a firearm under § 922(a)(6). Thus, it can be

reasoned that although the lawfulness of a sale may

change depending on the identity of the purchaser,

the fact that the identity of the purchaser is material

to the lawfulness of the sale does not.

Id. (emphasis added).

In denying Abramski’s first dismissal motion from the

bench on March 14, 2011, the court relied on the Frazier case,

expressing concern that Abramski’s theory "creates an extra

element in the prosecution of the offense" in that the government would have to "prove that the middleman, in this case

[Abramski], knew that a subsequent purchaser was a prohibited person." J.A. 266. The court rejected that theory, ruling

that "both counts of the indictment are legally sound. It seems

to me that, if the government is able to prove what the grand

jury has alleged in the indictment, that the defendant would

be in violation of these two statutes." J.A. 276. In sum, we are

satisfied that the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the

district court, correctly and properly ruled that the identity of

the actual purchaser of a firearm is a constant that is always

material to the lawfulness of a firearm acquisition under

§ 922(a)(6).

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 13
The ATF Form 4473, as completed and signed by Abramski, warned him — in bold type — that he was not the actual

buyer of the Glock 19 handgun if he was buying it for someone else. And the undisputed facts show that Abramski’s

transfer of the Glock 19 to Alvarez was not an afterthought.

On this record, that transfer was a carefully calculated event

— indeed, it was the sole reason for Abramski’s purchase of

the Glock 19 handgun. Because the identity of the actual purchaser of the handgun was material to the lawfulness of its

acquisition by Abramski on November 17, 2009, he made a

false and fictitious statement to the licensed dealer when he

answered "Yes" to question 11.a. on the ATF Form 4473,

assuring the dealer that he was the actual buyer.

2.

Turning to Count Two, § 924(a)(1)(A) of Title 18 criminalizes "any false statement or representation with respect to the

information required by this chapter to be kept in the records

of a person licensed under this chapter." 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(a)(1)(A). To establish a violation of § 924(a)(1)(A), the

government must prove that: (1) the dealer was a federally

licensed firearms dealer at the time the offense occurred; (2)

the defendant made a false statement or representation in a

record that the licensed firearm dealer was required by federal

law to maintain; and (3) the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. This statutory provision

does not require that the falsehood on the ATF Form 4473

relate to the lawfulness of the firearm acquisition itself.

Although Abramski argues that his "Yes" answer to question

11.a. on the Form 4473 was not material to the recordkeeping

requirements of § 924(a)(1)(A), the plain statutory language

is unambiguous, and it does not require a showing of materiality. See United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th

Cir. 2012) ("the text of § 924(a)(1)(A) unambiguously

describes which false statements and representations it prohibits — simply those that are made with respect to information that is required to be kept by federally licensed firearms

14 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
dealers"); United States v. Sullivan, 459 F.2d 993, 994 (8th

Cir. 1972) ("While a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a)(6)

expressly requires a showing of materiality no such expression is found in § 924(a).").

3.

In sum, the assertion that Abramski was the actual buyer of

the Glock 19 handgun was a false and fictitious answer to

question 11.a. of the ATF Form 4473, and that false statement

was material to the lawfulness of the Virginia sale of the

handgun. Moreover, the identity of the actual purchaser of the

Glock 19 handgun was a fact required to be maintained by the

Virginia firearms dealer that sold the firearm. By virtue of the

bold-print warning on question 11.a. of the ATF Form 4473,

Abramski was on notice that he was not the actual buyer of

the handgun if he was purchasing it for someone else.

Accordingly, the district court properly denied Abramski’s

motion to dismiss both charges of the indictment.

B.

Abramski next contends that the second search warrant

(relating to the Iron Ridge Road property), was defectively

issued and not supported by probable cause. As a result, he

maintains that the agents’ seizure of the receipt concerning his

transaction with Alvarez from the Iron Ridge Road residence

exceeded the scope of that warrant. 

As spelled out above, the FBI agents executed two search

warrants in their robbery investigation of Abramski. They

first searched his parents’ home on Highland Farm Road in

Calloway, and the results of that search led them, at least in

part, to also search Abramski’s marital home on Iron Ridge

Road in Rocky Mount. Abramski argues on appeal, first, that

the affidavit for the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road

property was legally insufficient. Additionally, Abramski contends that execution of the search warrant for the Iron Ridge

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 15
Road property contravened the warrant’s directives, resulting

in an unconstitutional seizure of the receipt for Abramski’s

transfer of the Glock 19 handgun to Alvarez.

1.

The affidavit supporting the search warrant for the Highland Farm Road property included information about what the

bank robber was wearing, what he carried, and the vehicle he

was driving (a blue Ford Explorer). The affidavit shows that

one of the bank tellers picked Abramski’s picture from a

photo lineup as a "suspicious white male who visited the

bank" several days before the robbery. J.A. 230. The affidavit

explained that when Abramski made his purchase of the

Glock 19 handgun at Town Police Supply, he paid in cash

from a green zippered money pouch with white lettering. It

also demonstrated that Abramski had limited financial

resources and had been discharged by the Roanoke police

department because he was believed to have stolen money

during an investigation. Among other details, the affidavit

revealed that Abramski had tested a green Ford Explorer on

the day of the robbery. 

During the search on Highland Farm Road, Abramski’s

father told the officers that Abramski had only been living

there for about a week. The affidavit supporting the search

warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property included information that Abramski may have left his belongings at that residence. The affidavit explained that the agents had already

seized inculpatory evidence in the Highland Farm Road

search, including a "green zippered money pouch," and specified that the application for the Iron Ridge Road warrant

"does not seek authority to seize these items." Nevertheless,

one of the agents conducting the search at Iron Ridge Road

found an additional green zippered money bag from Franklin

Community Bank. The receipt for the transfer to Alvarez of

the Glock 19 handgun was found and seized from inside that

bag.

16 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
Following the suppression hearing conducted on March 14,

2011, the district court ruled from the bench that "both warrants were valid and that the items seized pursuant to those

search warrants are properly admitted." J.A. 310. The court

then concluded that "[c]learly there’s probable cause for both

search warrants."8

Id.

2.

A judicial officer’s determination of probable cause is entitled to "great deference" by a reviewing court. See Illinois v.

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). "The probable cause standard ‘is not defined by bright lines and rigid boundaries’ but

‘allows a [judicial officer] to review the facts and circumstances as a whole and make a common sense determination’

whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime

will be found." United States v. Wellman, 663 F.3d 224, 228

(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d

212, 217 (4th Cir. 2005)). 

The prosecution maintains that the district court’s suppression ruling must be affirmed, arguing that the "catch-all"

clause in the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property

required seizure of the receipt. It asserts that the green Franklin Community Bank money bag fell within that clause, as did

the handgun receipt, because the officers then believed that

Abramski had robbed the bank with a Glock handgun. The

United States also contends that, in any event, the green bag

was in plain view, and that the officers were entitled to seize

it because its incriminating character was readily apparent.

The prosecutors finally argue that the good faith exception

applies, even if the search warrant was based on stale evidence and seizure of the green bag was somehow improper.

8Finally, in the alternative, the court determined that, "even if the warrants were too broad or somewhat stale, I think that the officers were entitled to, in good faith, rely on the issuance of the warrants in conducting

the searches. So even if the probable cause is somewhat weak, I think

good faith protects the outcome of the searches." Id. at 310-11. 

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 17
a.

First and foremost, it is clear to us that the Iron Ridge Road

search warrant was supported by probable cause. The supporting affidavit for that warrant connected Abramski to the

Rocky Mount bank robbery in several ways: 

• Abramski was flagged as a suspicious customer

at the bank just a few days before the robbery; 

• He was having financial difficulties; 

• He had been fired by the police department for

allegedly stealing money; 

• He was about the same height as the robber; 

• Abramski was seen wearing a watch and jacket

similar to those worn by the robber;

• He had tested a green Ford Explorer on the day

of the robbery, and the witnesses asserted that the

robber made his getaway in a blue Ford Explorer;

and

• Abramski had purchased firearms with a large

amount of cash after the bank robbery.

In these circumstances, there was a substantial basis for the

magistrate judge to conclude that probable cause existed for

the search of Abramski’s residence on Iron Ridge Road.

b.

Finally, we reject Abramski’s challenge to the scope of the

search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road residence. The agents

were then investigating the robbery of Franklin Community

Bank, which had been carried out with a firearm similar to a

18 UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI
Glock 19 handgun. When the agents discovered the green zippered bag bearing the Franklin Community Bank logo, and

when they found inside that bag the receipt for Alvarez’s purchase of the Glock 19 handgun, such evidence had to be

seized. In these circumstances, the Iron Ridge Road warrant

was properly issued, and the agents’ seizure of the receipt was

not unconstitutional. The district court therefore did not err in

declining to suppress that evidence.9

IV.

Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district court

is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

9

In his reply brief, Abramski asserts that neither of the affidavits supporting the search warrant demonstrates that the agents believed the items

sought would be found at Abramski’s residence seven months after the

robbery. Rep. Br. of Appellant 5. Inasmuch as this is a staleness argument

concerning the timeliness of the warrants, we need not address it, in that

it was abandoned by not being raised in Abramski’s opening brief on

appeal. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir.

2004) (recognizing that "contentions not raised in the argument section of

the opening brief are abandoned"). 

UNITED STATES v. ABRAMSKI 19