Opinion ID: 171156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deference to the ATF's interpretation

Text: The ATF's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33) and § 7-13-1501 also provides some support for our conclusion that the terms expunge and set aside both require the state procedure to remove completely the effects of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. The ATF's interpretation is not entitled to Chevron [10] deference because the ATF did not interpret the statutes pursuant to an adjudication or a formal rulemaking process. Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1226 (10th Cir.2007). Instead, we afford the interpretation deference only to the extent the agency's interpretation is `well reasoned' and has the `power to persuade.' N.M. Cattle Growers, 248 F.3d at 1281 (quoting Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627, 631 (10th Cir.1998)). In its several letters to the state of Wyoming, the ATF stated that § 7-13-1501 did not result in expungement for the purposes of § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). The ATF concluded that because the conviction records are not destroyed and remain available to law enforcement agencies for criminal enforcement purposes, Wyoming Statute X-XX-XXXX does not result in `expungement' that removes the fact of conviction for criminal justice purposes. While this interpretation only addresses the term expunge, given our determination that Congress intended the two terms to have equivalent meanings, we find that this interpretation offers persuasive support in favor of our conclusion that § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) requires the complete removal of all effects of a prior conviction to constitute either an expungement or a set aside.