FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 26, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 75 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 03 44 -WS-MD R. E. BANKSTON, Fi rearm s R et ai le r Bu ckan d Bas s Sp orti ng Goo ds , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
COLLEEN M. TH EN, Dire ct orof I ndus try Opera ti on s Tam paFie ld Div is io n B ur eauof Al co ho l To ba cco Fir earm s an d Ex pl os iv e, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st26 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Fed eral law re qu ire s a l ic en se d fi rearm s d eal er t o c on du cta cri m in al ba ck gr ou ndch eckpri orto th e tr an sf er o f an y fir earm . 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (t) (1 ). Und er § 92 2( t)( 5) , If the li cen se e kno win gl y tra ns fers a fi rearm

to su ch othe r pe rs on an d kn owi ng ly fail s t o c om

pl y wit h p arag rap h (1 ) of

th is subs ect io n . . . an d, atth e ti m e su ch ot he r pe rs on m os t re cen tl y pro po se d t he tra ns fer, th e n at io na l i ns ta ntcri m in al ba ck gr ou ndch ecksyste m was o pe rat in g an d i nf orm at io n was av ai labl e to th e syst em de m on st rat in g tha t rece ip t o f a fi rearm

by suc h o th er p ers on wou ldvi ol at e subs ect io n (g ) or(n) of t hi s s ect io n . . . th e Att orne y Gene ral m ay , aft er n ot ic e an d op po rtu ni ty for a h eari ng . . . im po se on th e li cen se e a ci vi l fi ne of n ot m or e th an$5 ,00 0. 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (t) (5 ). In t hi s ap pe al , we are as ke d t o d et erm in e whe th er § 92 2( t) 1 di ct at es th atth e li cen se e is pro hi bi te d fr om tra ns ferr in g afir earm

if t he ba ck gr ou ndch eckpro du ces in accu rat e in fo rm at io n a ndth e b uyer is no t ac tu al ly fo rb id de n fr om

pu rch as in g t he fir earm . W e m us t al so de te rm in e th e le ve l o f
m en ta l cu lp ab il ity

requi redto vi ol at e th e st atut e. W e co nc lu de th atth e acc ur acy of th e in fo rm at io n a t t he ti m e o f th e ch eckis irr el ev an t fo r pu rp os es of t hi s s ta tu te , an d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t n eedon ly pro ve th e li cen se e act edkn owi ng ly. W e

Subsection (g ) prohibits the possession of a firea rm by , among others, anyone convicted of 1 a crime for which the punishment exceeds one y ear imprisonment. Subsection (n) prohibits firea rm possession by anyone under indictmen t fo r an o ffe nse punishable by more than one y ear imprisonment. 18 U.S.C . § 922(g ), (n)
. 2th eref

or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er. R. E. Ban ks to n was th e so le pro pr ie to r of Bu ck an d B as s Sp orti ng Goo ds , a li cen se d fi rearm s d eal er. In 20 06 , th e Bu reauof Al co ho l, To ba cco , andFir earm s (ATF) in sp ect edth e sh op an d d is co ve redfiv e v io la ti on s o f fed eral fir earm s l aws , in cl ud in g t he fai lu re t o c on du ctba ck gr ou ndch eck s. Ba nk st on was n ot ifi edof t he vi ol at io ns an d re cei ve d awarn in g c on fere nc e, aft er wh ic h h e as su redATF in ve st ig at or s t ha t h e wou ldfol lo w pro pe r pr oc edur es in th e fu tu re. In20 08 , ATF Indus try Opera ti on s In ve st ig at orJames Hit hc oc k c on du ct ed
an ot he r in sp ect io n o f Bu ckan d B as s, fi nd in g fo urvi ol at io ns in whi chBan ks to n ha d t ran sf

erre d afir earm

wit ho utfir stco nduc ti ng th e requi redba ck gr ou ndch eck th ro ug h t he Flo rid a Dep artm en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t (F DLE). In p art ic ul ar, Ban ks to n t ran sf

erre d afir earm

to James Bro ok s o n Au gu st23 , 20 07 , bu t t he FDLE ch eckwas n otpe rfo rm edun ti l Se pt em be r 1, 2 00 7. Whenhe co nduc te d t he ch eck , Ban ks to n l earn edth atBro ok s was no t ap pr ov edto pu rch as e a fi rearm . The ATF is su edBan ks to n ano ti ce o f im po si ti on of afin e inco nn ect io n wit h t he tra ns fer t o B ro ok s. At asubs eque nthe ari ng , Hithc oc k t es ti fie d t ha t Ban ks to n a dm it te d kno win g h e was requi redto co nduc t t he ba ck gr ou ndch eck be fo re h e tr an sf

erre d t he fir earm . Hith co ckco nf irmed th atth e FDLE si te was op erat io na l o n Au gu st23 , 20 07 , andth atFDLE hadco nf irmed th atBan ks to n 3wou ldha ve rece iv eda no n- ap pr ov al ha d h e co nduc te d t he ch eckth atda y .

Hit hc oc k c ou ldno t d is cl os e wha t cr im in al hi st ory ren de redBro ok s i ne li gi bl e; he
co ul d o nl y

co nf irm th atitin vo lv eda fed eral ch arg e. Inhi s o wn t es ti m on y , Ban ks to n a dm it te d t ha t h e kne w he was requi redto pe rfo rm th e ch eckbu t s ta te d t ha t t he fai lu re t o d o s o i n t hi s ca se was am is ta ke
. He st at edth athe di d n otdo itkn owi ng ly. He ex pl ai ne d t ha t wh enhe lea rn ed Bro ok s was no t ap pr ov ed , he c al le d B ro ok s an d re tri ev edth e g un . The he ari ng off

ic er co nc lu de d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adest ab li sh edth e el em en ts of § 92 2( t)( 5) an d t ha t Ba nk st on ha d v io la te d t he fed eral fir earm requi rem en ts . There aft er, the ATF im po se d t he $5 ,00 0 fi ne . Ban ks to n t he n fi le d th is pe ti ti on forrev ie w un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 23 (f)(3 ), arg ui ng th atth e in fo rm at io n in th e syst em

was i nc orrectbe cau se Bro ok s was no t p ro hi bi te d fr om own in g a fir earm . He subm it te d c op ie s o f Bro ok s’s cr im in al reco rd , whi ch sh owe d t ha t Bro ok s h adbe enco nv ic te d i n 1 97 1 o f th ree m is de m ean orfed eral off en se s u nd er 42 U.S.C. § 4 08 (e). 2 The di stric t co urt g ran te d the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,
In 1971, when Br ooks was convicted, 42 U.S.C. § 408(e) provided that anyone who made 2 an application for pay

ment for the benef

it and use of anothe r an d t h en knowing ly and willfully co n v erte d the pay

ment for another use was guilty of a misdemeanor. 42 U.S.C. § 408 (e ) (1 9 5 8 ); Pub. L
. 85-840, 72 Stat. 1013, 1035 (Aug
. 28, 1958). In 1981, Congr ess amende d the statute, making any violation a felony
. Pub. L
. 97-123, 95 Stat. 1659, 1664 (De c. 29, 1981). Subsection (e) is curre ntly

codified at 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(5) (2004). 4co nc lu di ng th atth e st atut ory lan gu ag e d idno t re qu ire th e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le th ro ug h t he ba ck gr ou ndch eckto be accu rat e an d t ha t Bank st on ha d a ct ed kn owi ng ly. Ban ks to n n ow ap pe al s ch al le ng in g the di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s th at(1) th e in fo rm at io n i n t he ba ck gr ou ndch eckdi d n otha ve to be accu rat e, an d (2 ) th e g ov ern m en t co ul d, an d d id , pro ve th athe ha d a ct edkn owi ng ly. W e 3 ad dr es s ea ch is su e in tu rn . A. Accur acy of In fo rm at io n Ban ks to n a rg ue s t ha t § 92 2( t)( 5) pro hi bi ts th e sa le of afir earm to a tra ns fere e o nl y

if t he rece ip t o f th atfir earm by the tra ns fere e wou ldactua ll y vi ol at e § 92 2( g) or ( n) . Thu s, i f th e in fo rm at io n i n t he ba ck gr ou ndch eckwas n ot
accu rat e, th e tr an sf

er wo ul d n otbe il le ga l. W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n de no vo . W ar sh au er v. So lis , 57 7 F .3d13 30 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ ‘T he st art in g p oi ntinst atut ory in te rp ret at io n i s t he lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e it se lf.’” Id

. (qu ot in g Ardes ta ni v. INS , 50 2 U.S. 1 29 , 13 5 (1 99 1) ). “ If the ‘ la ng ua ge at i ss ue ha s a p la in an d u na m bi gu ou s
m ean in g wi th reg ardto th e p art ic ul ar d is pu te in th e cas e,’ and‘ th e st atut ory
sc he m e is co he ren t an d c on si st en t,’ th e in qu iry is o ve r.” Id

. (qu ot in g Rob in so n v .
We revie w a district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt de novo , viewing all fac ts in the 3 light most favor able to the non-moving party . W illingham Sports, Inc. v. Bur ea u o f A l cohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Ex plosives , 415 F.3d 1274, 1276 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

5Sh el l Oi l Co

. , 51 9 U.S. 3 37 , 34 0 (1 99 7) ). “ Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a s ta tu te is

pl ai n o r am

bi gu ou s, we co ns id er ‘th e la ng ua ge it se lf, t he sp eci fic co nt ex t i n wh ic h th atlan gu ag e is us ed , andth e b ro ad er co nt ex t o f th e st atut e as a who le .’ ” Id

. Ban ks to n’s ar gu m en t fo cu se s o n t he lan gu ag e, “ in fo rma ti on wa s a va il ab le to th e syst em

de m on strat in g tha t re cei ptof afir earm by suc h o th er p ers on wo uld vi ol at e subs ect io n (g ) or(n) of t hi s s ect io n.” (em ph as is ad de d) . He con te nd s t ha t th e st atut e m

us t b e in te rp ret edto m eanth at ac cu ra te in fo rm at io n was av ai labl e. The pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e, ho wev er, i nc lu de s n o s uc h m od ifi er. Mo reo ve r, th e st atut e u se s t he term “ atth e ti m e,” i nd ic at in g t ha t i t wo ul d n otbe rel ev an t i f th e in fo rm at io n l at er turne d o utto be in co rrec t. The foc us is onth e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le when th e d eal er co nduc ts th e b ack gr ou ndch eck . Here, ha d Ban ks to n c on du ct edth e ch eckat t he ti m e o f tr an sf er, h e wou ldha ve rece iv eda
no n- ap pr ov al . The fac t t ha t Br oo ks co ul d l at er s ho w he was eli gi bl e to own th e gu n d oe s n otch an ge th e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le at t he ti m e o f th e tr an sf er. W e fi ndsupp ort fo r th is in te rp ret at io n i n C on gr es s’s d eci si on to gi ve pu rch as ers , bu t n otde al ers , th e ab il it y to ch al le ng e n on -ap pr ov al st atus . Se e 28 C.F.R. § 25 .10 . This m ak es sen se : b ecau se a de al er i s n ev er t ol d t he reas on forth e
no n- ap pr ov al , on ly the in di vi du al pu rch as er wo ul d kno w hi s cr im in al hi st ory an d be ab le to ch al le ng e h is st atus . 6W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e in fo rm at io n t ran sm it te d dur in g aba ck gr ou nd ch eckne edno t b e acc ur at e atth e ti m e o f th e ch eckto pro hi bi t t he fir earm tra ns fer. B. Whe th er t he Lice ns ee M us t ActKno win gl y Ban ks to n n ex t ar gu es th atth e g ov ern m en t h adto pro ve hi s cu lp ab il it y by sh owi ng he act edwil fu ll y rat he r th ankn owi ng ly. Alt ern at iv el y , he c on te nd s t ha t th e g ov ern m en t d idno t p ro ve he kn owi ng ly fail edto co nduc t t he ba ck gr ou nd ch eck . He furt he r as se rts th athe can no t b e h el d v ic ari ou sl y li ab le forhi s
em pl oyee’s fai lu re t o c on du ctth e ch eck
. W e d is ag ree. Fi rs t, o th er s ect io ns of t he Gun Co nt ro l Actus e th e te rm

“ wil lfu l” or “ wil lfu ll y .” Se e18 U.S.C. § 9 23 (d )(1 )(C) , (D). ButCo ng res s ch os e to us e “ kn owi ng ly” in§ 9 22 (t) (5 ). Thi s d is ti nc ti onin di cat es th atCo ng res s d idno t in te ndth e st an da rdfor

§ 9 22 (t) (5 ) to be wil lfu ln es s. Se e Dun ca n v . W alker , 53 3 U.S. 16 7, 1 73 (20 01 ) (“ It i s wel l s et tl edth atwher e Co ng res s i nc lu de s p art ic ul ar la ng ua ge in on e se ct io n o f a s ta tu te bu t o m it s i t i n ano th er s ect io n o f th e sa m e Act , itis ge ne ral ly pres um edth atCo ng res s ac ts in te nt io na ll y an d p ur po se ly in t he di sp arat e in cl us io n o r ex cl us io n.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); DIRECTV, In c. v. Bro wn , 37 1 F .3d81 4, 8 18 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ As we h av e p rev io us ly stat ed , whe n C on gr es s u se s d iff

eren t l an gu ag e in si m il ar s ect io ns , itin te nd s d iff eren t
m ean in gs .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Mo reo ve r, we wil l p res um e th at
7Co ng res s s ai d wh atitm ean t. In re He nd ri ck , 52 4 F .3d11 75 , 11 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ); Keh oe v. Fid. Fede ra l Ba nk s & Tru st , 42 1 F .3d12 09 , 12 16 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w Ban ks to n act edkn owi ng ly. “ Kno win gl y ” is de fin edas “ ha vi ng anawaren es s o r
un de rs ta nd in g; de li be rat e; co ns ci ou s.” Bla ck’s La w Dic ti on ar y , 7t h Ed . (19 99 ). Here, Ba nk st on tes ti fie d t ha t h e was aware o f th e b ack gr ou ndch eckrequi rem en ts , ha d b een co un se le d abo utth e req ui rem en ts pre vi ou sl y , andha d e du cat edhi s s ta ff ab ou t the requi rem en ts . Alth ou gh Ban ks to n t es ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t kno win gl y ig no re t he requi rem en ts , he a dm it te d t ha t h e was aware tha t h e was requi redto pe rfo rm th e ch eck s b efo re t ran sf

erri ng a fi rearm . He als o a dm it te d tha t h e h ad si gn edoff

on th e tr an sf

er t o B ro ok s ev enth ou gh th e ch eckha d n otbe endo ne . Thi s was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atBan ks to n kno win gl y vi ol at edth e la w. Mo reo ve r, co nt rary to B an ks to n’s ar gu m en ts , Ban ks to n was li ab le forth e act s o f hi s emplo y ees . “ Pu re v ic ari ou s l iabi li ty, su ch as r es po nd eatsupe rio r li ab il it y , attrib ut es li ab il it y to on e p art y

ba se d o n t he act io ns of t he ot he r pa rty reg ard le ss of a ny all eg at io n o f cu lp ab il it y on th e p art y

he ldvi cari ou sl y

li ab le .” La pe rr ie re v. Vest a In s. Gr ou p, In c. , 52 6 F .3d71 5, 7 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). An
em pl oyee’s kn owl ed ge can be im pu te d t o t he em

pl oyer “ whe n t he em

pl oyee act s 8fo r th e b en efi t o f th e [em pl oyer] an d wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t.” Gra nd Uni on Co . v. Uni te d Sta tes , 69 6 F .2d88 8, 8 91 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (d is cu ss in g t he ory of vi cari ou s l iabi li ty in Fa ls e Cl ai m s Actcas e in whi chsupe rm ark etcas hi ers al lo wedcu st om ers to bu y in el ig ib le it em s wi th foo d s ta m ps ). Here, the em

pl oyee who actua ll y

so ldth e g un to Bro ok s was work in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s
em pl oym en t an d fo r Ban ks to n’s b en efi t. Ban ks to n was th e so le pro pr ie to r of th e gu n s ho p a ndth us was re sp on si bl e fo r th e act s o f hi s emplo y ees . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we AFFI RM t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er. AFFIRMED.

9