UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2008

CHARLES RICHARD ALSOP GILBERT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY BANGS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-01440-AW)

Submitted: May 4, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Rod J. 

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Richard Alsop Gilbert, Jr., appeals the 

district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) and 

dismissing his petition for review of ATF’s final administrative 

decision denying his application for a federal firearms license 

for violations of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 921-30 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment de novo. Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 694 

(4th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Summary judgment shall be granted 

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether a 

genuine issue of material fact exists, we must view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Blaustein & 

Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, 365 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2004). 

However, “a nonmovant cannot defeat summary judgment with merely 

a scintilla of evidence.” Id. 

The Attorney General is authorized to deny an 

application for a federal firearms license if the applicant 

“willfully violated” any provision of the GCA. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(d)(1)(C). A single willful violation of the Act is 
3

sufficient to authorize the denial of an application for a 

federal firearms license. Appalachian Res. Dev. Corp. v. 

McCabe, 387 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2004); Arwady Hand Trucks 

Sales, Inc. v. Vander Werf, 507 F. Supp. 3d 754, 763 (S.D. Tex. 

2007); DiMartino v. Buckles, 129 F. Supp. 3d 824, 827 (D. Md. 

2001). 

Gilbert previously served as the owner and chief 

responsible person for American Arms International (“AAI”), 

which secured a federal firearms license to sell firearms and 

ammunition in 1984. After a series of compliance inspections 

revealed a myriad of violations, ATF revoked AAI’s license in 

2005. Gilbert petitioned for judicial review, and the district 

court awarded ATF summary judgment, finding that the revocation 

of AAI’s license “was not only ‘authorized’ but well justified” 

where Gilbert “continued to commit hundreds of violations of the 

GCA after repeated warnings about the unlawfulness of [his] 

prior noncompliance.” Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, No. DKC 2006-

2468 (D. Md. Feb. 19, 2008) (unpublished). This court affirmed 

the district court’s judgment, noting that “[i]n the more than 

twenty years that Gilbert has been in business, [ ] he has shown 

a profound indifference to ATF's numerous efforts to bring him 

into compliance.” Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78, 87

(4th Cir. 2009).
4

On October 20, 2008, Gilbert filed an application for 

a federal firearms license in his personal capacity. ATF denied 

Gilbert’s application on June 23, 2009, reasoning that Gilbert 

had willfully violated the GCA by: (1) serving as the chief 

responsible person for AAI, which committed thousands of 

violations of the GCA from 1984 to 2003, resulting in the 

revocation of its federal firearms license; (2) attempting to 

circumvent the revocation decision through a series of straw 

applications from 2004 to 2007; and (3) continuing to order and 

sell firearms in February and March 2008 following the 

revocation of AAI’s federal firearms license. Following a 

hearing, ATF issued Gilbert a Final Notice of Denial of 

Application, and Gilbert petitioned for judicial review in the 

district court. The district court granted ATF’s motion for 

summary judgment, finding that substantial evidence existed to 

support a finding of hundreds of willful violations of the GCA 

that serve as a valid basis for ATF’s denial of Gilbert’s 

license application.

On appeal, Gilbert asserts that the district court 

erred in granting ATF summary judgment because the five-year 

statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 bars 

consideration of Gilbert’s willful violations committed under 

AAI’s license prior to 2003. In addition, Gilbert contends that 

he did not willfully violate the GCA by: (1) failing to file a 
5

theft report for nineteen firearms; (2) ordering firearms in 

2008 after AAI’s license was revoked; and (3) making material 

misrepresentations on the applications of other individuals.

The district court declined to interpret 28 U.S.C. § 

2462 as barring ATF’s ability to consider Gilbert’s acts under 

AAI’s license that occurred more than five years before ATF 

denied Gilbert’s application in June 2009. We concur. Section 

2462 provides, in relevant part, that the United States may not 

commence an “action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of 

any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise” 

more than five years after the claim first accrued. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2462. Because the United States did not “commence” the 

proceedings that have led to this appeal, and, in any event, the 

denial of a federal firearms application is not the enforcement 

or assessment of a civil penalty, the statute of limitations 

imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 does not apply here. 

Although Gilbert contests the factual basis for some 

violations cited by ATF that postdate the revocation of AAI’s 

license, Gilbert does not dispute the thousands of violations 

committed under AAI’s license from 1984 to 2003. As ATF is 

authorized to deny an application for a federal firearms license 

based upon a single violation, ATF was clearly authorized in 

denying Gilbert’s application. Accordingly, the district court 

properly awarded ATF summary judgment. 
6

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED