Source: https://m.openjurist.org/318/f3d/1030
Timestamp: 2020-01-20 16:14:25
Document Index: 797648803

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 3742', '§ 922', '§ 922', 'art:\n18', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 922']

318 F3d 1030 United States v. Ortiz | OpenJurist
318 F. 3d 1030 - United States v. Ortiz
318 F3d 1030 United States v. Ortiz
318 F.3d 1030
Raul Anthony ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-13961 Non-Argument Calendar.
A nine-count indictment charged Ortiz with (1) making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (Counts 1 through 7); (2) dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) (Count 8); and (3) transporting firearms in interstate commerce with intent to engage in dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(b) (Count 9). The jury convicted Ortiz on all nine counts.
A. Ortiz Purchased Seventeen Guns
At the time of his offenses, Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Army, stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Ortiz legally could purchase firearms in the State of Georgia for himself. Ortiz made a total of seven sales transactions with two pawn shops in Hinesville, Georgia, resulting in his aggregate purchase of seventeen pistols. Prior to each purchase, he completed an ATF Form 4473, answering "yes" to question 9a: "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm indicated on this form?" The question continues: "[i]f you answer `no' to this question the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you. (See Important Notice 1.)" Important Notice 1 warns that "[a]ny individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift, but who completes the form, violates the law."
B. Ortiz's Signed Statement
Ortiz's statement indicated that "[b]efore I purchased any of these firearms, an individual named Alex Rivera, a friend of my sister, Elisha Ortiz, had asked me if I could buy guns for him in Georgia" (emphasis added). In his statement,7 Ortiz described each of his three trips to New York City. Regarding the first trip, Ortiz stated that he traveled to New York City by Greyhound bus with the first four guns, which he took to his fiancee's house. She objected to having the guns there, so Ortiz "called Alex Rivera ... and offered to sell him the guns." He then returned to Hinesville, Georgia. Using some of the proceeds from his previous sale, Ortiz purchased five more guns in Hinesville. As to this second purchase for Rivera, Ortiz's statement also indicated: "Rivera had asked me to purchase more firearms and that he would buy them from me."
C. Rivera's Testimony
With respect to Ortiz's convictions, we review de novo whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. A jury's verdict will be affirmed "if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341, 1355 (11th Cir.2002). We view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government's favor" in determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim. Id.
With respect to Ortiz's sentence, "[w]e review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error." United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 806 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3742, which provides that "[t]he court of appeals ... shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts").9
A. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)
In counts 1 through 7, Ortiz was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which provides in relevant part:
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). To sustain a conviction under § 922(a)(6), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant knowingly made; (2) a false or fictitious written statement in connection with the purchase of firearms; (3) intended to deceive or likely to deceive a licensed firearms dealer; (4) and the false statement was a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or disposition of the firearm. Id.; see United States v. Nelson, 221 F.3d 1206, 1210 n. 6 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951, 121 S.Ct. 356, 148 L.Ed.2d 286 (2000); United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286, 294-95 (5th Cir.1997).10 The identity of the actual purchaser is clearly "a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale" of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). See United States v. Klais, 68 F.3d 1282, 1283 (11th Cir.1995).11 Thus, a defendant violates § 922(a)(6) when the defendant signs the ATF form using a false name because that misrepresents the identity of the purchaser. United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F.3d 819, 833 (11th Cir. 1996).
This Court also has made it clear that "straw purchases" equally misrepresent the identity of the purchaser in a firearm sale and violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). See Nelson 221 F.3d at 1210. Straw purchases of firearms occur when an unlawful purchaser, such as Rivera, uses a lawful "straw man" purchaser, such as Ortiz, to obtain a firearm. See Nelson 221 F.3d at 1209.12 "If an ineligible buyer could simply use a `straw man' or agent to obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer, the statutory scheme would be too easily defeated."13 Id. In Nelson, the two ineligible buyers actually supplied the money for the firearms and recruited and paid Georgia residents to purchase the firearms.
Given all the factual circumstances in this case, we conclude that the evidence was also sufficient to sustain Ortiz's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) as to the guns in the Jenkins transaction. As already mentioned, ATF Form 4473 specifically asks in question 9a: "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm indicated on this form?" The question is not merely "are you the buyer of the firearm," but "are you the actual buyer of the firearm." The essence of the information sought by this question is further clarified by Important Notice 1, which warns "[a]ny individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift, but who completes the form, violates the law." This is precisely what Ortiz did.
As to his sentence, Ortiz contends that the district court erred in finding that he obliterated the serial numbers on certain guns and in imposing a 2-level increase to his offense level based on this fact finding. Ortiz contends that this fact should have been submitted to and decided by a jury under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a 2-level enhancement "[i]f any firearm was stolen, or had an altered or obliterated serial number." U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4). The evidence amply supported the district court's finding that Ortiz obliterated the serial numbers, and the district court properly imposed this 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4).
Ortiz also makes several Apprendi-based arguments attacking the district court's sentence, but none has merit. First, in Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that "any fact [other than a prior conviction] that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Ortiz's concurrent terms of 33 months' imprisonment on each count of conviction do not exceed the statutory maximum penalty of 10 years for each of his § 922(a)(6) convictions. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); United States v. Le, 256 F.3d 1229, 1240 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1145, 122 S.Ct. 1103, 151 L.Ed.2d 999 (2002); United States v. Smith, 240 F.3d 927, 930 (11th Cir.2001). Thus, his sentence does not violate Apprendi.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1996).
In addition, specific intent is not an element of the offenseUnited States v. Hawkins, 794 F.2d 589, 591 (11th Cir.1986). In this regard, "specific intent" means "[t]he intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later charged with." Black's Law Dictionary 814 (Deluxe 7th ed.1999).
Although the defendant inNelson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), this Court recognized that the reasoning of § 922(a)(6) "provides guidance ... because of the similarities between the two provisions." Nelson, 221 F.3d at 1210 n. 6.
Other courts have likewise held that "straw purchases" or similar sham transactions violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)See United States v. Lawrence, 680 F.2d 1126, 1128 (6th Cir.1982) ("Other courts have upheld convictions for gun registration violations predicated on sham transactions and we must do so here."); United States v. Sargent, 98 F.3d 325, 327 (7th Cir.1996) (gang member makes straw purchases of firearms for gang in exchange for "money, protection, and status"); United States v. Remsza, 77 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir.1996) (defendant acts as "straw purchaser" for out-of-state resident).
See United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that the jury has "exclusive province" over the determination as to the credibility of a witness, and this Court may not revisit this question), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 996, 121 S.Ct. 1658, 149 L.Ed.2d 640 (2001); see also United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461, 1470 (11th Cir.1996) (holding that if a reasonable person could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury's verdict must stand).
Because both Rivera and Jenkins were ineligible buyers, we do not address the situation where both the ultimate buyer and the "straw purchaser" are lawfully eligible to purchase firearmsSee, e.g., United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir.1997).