Opinion ID: 2971581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count One – Conspiracy to Acquire Firearms

Text: In order to sell a firearm, a licensed firearms dealer is required to have the buyer fill out an ATF Form 4473, which solicits information concerning, among other things, prior felony convictions and the individual’s state of residence. Federal law prohibits a licensed firearms dealer from selling handguns to a purchaser with a prior felony conviction or who resides outside of the state. The dealer also cannot sell a firearm to a buyer if the buyer indicates on the ATF Form 4473 that he or she is not the actual buyer of the firearm. Count One of the indictment charged -4- No. 02-6156 Washington with conspiracy to acquire firearms from various licensed dealers by making false statements on ATF Forms 4473 concerning facts material to the firearms’ purchase, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The essential elements of a conspiracy are: (1) an object to be accomplished; (2) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object; and (3) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the defendants whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means. United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Bostic, 480 F.2d 965, 968 (6th Cir.1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Proof of a formal agreement is not required to establish a conspiracy; ‘a tacit or material understanding among the parties’ is sufficient.” United States v. Henley, 360 F.3d 509, 513 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1990)). “Mere association does not establish a conspiracy, but there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.” United States v. Bostic, 480 F.2d 965, 968 (6th Cir. 1973). Washington argues that there was insufficient evidence of his membership in a conspiracy to acquire firearms, but the record proves otherwise. Ronald Hill, Washington’s alleged coconspirator, took frequent trips to Memphis to acquire firearms unlawfully. On one occasion, Hill’s car broke down on the way back to Chicago, and Washington drove four or five hours from Chicago to pick him up. During the drive back to Chicago, Hill told Washington, “Slow down. You know, -5- No. 02-6156 I am hot,” strongly suggesting that Washington had knowingly assisted Hill in the transport of unlawfully acquired firearms long before Washington’s arrest on October 6, 2000.1 Most significantly, on October 6, 2000, Washington accompanied Ronald Hill and D’Angelo Mitchell to the VFW Pawn Shop and then to the AAA Pawn Shop in search of firearms. Like Hill, Washington gave Mitchell cash to purchase firearms for him by falsely claiming that she was the actual purchaser of the weapons. After leaving the AAA Pawn Shop with the handguns, Mitchell, Hill and Washington drove to the Arendall Arms Pawn Shop, during which time Washington told Mitchell that he wanted a 40 or a 45 caliber handgun and gave her about $200. At Arendall Arms, Mitchell purchased two guns for Hill and a 40 caliber handgun for Washington, again by falsely claiming that she was the actual purchaser of the handguns. This evidence shows an agreement or understanding between two or more of the defendants whereby they became definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement. Gibbs, 182 F.3d at 420. Washington, an Illinois resident with a prior felony conviction, cooperated with Hill in using Mitchell, who was a Tennessee resident with no prior felony convictions, to obtain handguns from licensed firearms dealers in Tennessee by having her claim that she was the actual purchaser. Washington also cooperated with Mitchell in this endeavor, as directly evidenced by his request that she purchase a 40 caliber handgun for him from Arendall Arms and his payment of $200 to her for that purpose. He knowingly and 1 The record evidence also showed that Washington accompanied Hill on several visits to Memphis prior to Washington’s arrest. On one such occasion, Hill and Washington were observed counting out a large amount of cash. -6- No. 02-6156 intentionally participated in at least two transactions with Hill and Mitchell to obtain firearms through false pretenses. Therefore, his conviction on Count One of the indictment must be affirmed. C. Count Eleven – Aiding and Abetting the Unlawful Acquisition of Firearms Count Eleven of the indictment charged Washington with aiding and abetting another individual in acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer by making false statements about facts material to the purchase, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 2. “Aiding and abetting requires that a defendant ‘in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participates in it as something he wishes to bring about, and that he seek by his action to make it succeed.’ Thus, it has been said that aiding and abetting involves (1) an act by a defendant which contributes to the execution of a crime; and (2) the intent to aid in its commission.” United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398, 409 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Lowery, 60 F.3d 1199, 1202 (6th Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). As discussed in the preceding section, the evidence shows that Washington associated himself with a venture to acquire firearms unlawfully from licensed dealers in Memphis, Tennessee. Federal firearms law precluded Washington from purchasing the firearms himself because he was not a resident of Tennessee and because he had prior felony convictions. Consequently, Washington, Hill and Mitchell drove together to three different pawn shops in search of firearms. Washington paid Mitchell to purchase firearms for him at two of the shops. In order to make those purchases, Mitchell was required to falsify several ATF Forms 4473 and indicate that she was the actual purchaser of the firearms; Mitchell testified that Washington was the true purchaser of the handguns. It is disingenuous for Washington to argue that Mitchell’s false statements on the -7- No. 02-6156 Forms 4473 “w[ere] entirely incidental to the possession [of the handguns] that the defendant desired and participated in” and that the evidence supported only the inference that he assisted Mitchell in unlawfully possessing the guns, not in making false statements to obtain the guns. A reasonable inference from the evidence was that Washington knew that Mitchell would be required to falsify the Forms 4473 because, otherwise, Washington simply could have attempted to make the purchases himself. He did not. Indeed, it appears that the only reasonable inference from the evidence is that Mitchell’s false statements were integral to Washington’s possession of the firearms and that Washington knew this fact. For these reasons, the jury reasonably could infer that Washington intended to assist Mitchell in acquiring firearms through false written statements and that he committed acts in furtherance of that crime, namely, by agreeing to pay Mitchell and then paying her to make the unlawful purchases. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to convict Washington on an aiding and abetting theory of guilt. D. Count Twelve – Felon in Possession of a Firearm Count Twelve charged Washington with having previously been convicted of numerous crimes punishable by more than one year imprisonment and knowingly possessing a firearm on October 6, 2000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Washington argues that there was insufficient evidence showing that he possessed the unlawfully obtained firearms recovered from the car he was riding in on the day of his arrest. “In order to prove that a defendant knowingly possessed an object, the government must demonstrate that the defendant had control over the object, either actually or constructively.” United States v. Murphy, 107 F.3d 1199, 1207 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Craven, 478 -8- No. 02-6156 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)). “If the weapon is not actually possessed, that is within the immediate power or control of the individual, the government must demonstrate that the person has ‘the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object....’” Id. at 1207-08 (citing Craven, supra, and United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995)). “Both actual and constructive possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 1208 (citing Craven, 478 F.2d at 1333). The evidence showed that Washington paid cash to Mitchell to purchase firearms for him from two different pawn shops by falsely claiming that she was the actual purchaser of the weapons. ATF agents, who had had Washington and his cohorts under surveillance the entire day, observed Kenneth Hill put a white bag in the trunk of his car. A few minutes later, Kenneth Hill, Ronald Hill and Washington got in the car and drove onto the Interstate, heading toward Chicago. After the car was pulled over, a search revealed eight weapons in the trunk, hidden inside the bag (actually a pillow case) that Kenneth Hill had put there. Three of those weapons were determined to be weapons that Mitchell had purchased for Washington. Under these circumstances, the jury could infer that Washington had control over those three weapons. Even if they were not in his immediate control (because they were in the trunk of Kenneth Hill’s car), the evidence strongly suggested that Washington had the power and intention, upon his arrival in Chicago, to exercise dominion and control over those three guns. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Washington possessed at least three of the unlawfully acquired guns, if not actually, then constructively. -9- No. 02-6156