Opinion ID: 222432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm Under the Virgin Islands Code

Text: The Virgin Islands Code makes it unlawful for any person to have, possess, transport, or carry a firearm without a locally-issued license to do so. 23 V.I.C. § 454; 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a). Tyson was charged with eleven counts of violating this provision  one count for each of the firearms he transported onto the island on July 31, 2008. The jury convicted Tyson on ten of these counts, and the District Court denied Tyson's motion for judgment of acquittal. Tyson appeals the District Court's order, though he acknowledges that the government proved he was in possession of the eleven firearms without a license. Tyson argues, however, that he had an affirmative defense under two separate licensing provisions of the Virgin Islands Code: 23 V.I.C. § 460 and 23 V.I.C. § 470(b). Section 460 requires authorities in the Virgin Islands to recognize a firearms license validly issued by another state or territory. Section 470(b) states that if an individual imports firearms into the Virgin Islands without a license to do so, he or she may avoid criminal liability by immediately registering the imported weapons. Tyson argues that either provision furnishes a defense for unauthorized firearm possession. Tyson did not request a jury instruction for either so-called affirmative defense and the District Court did not provide one. Tyson also did not object to the Court's instructions after they were given. Where a party fails to object to the district court's jury instructions, he waives the issue on appeal, `unless the error was so fundamental and highly prejudicial as to constitute plain error.' United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1261 n. 6 (3d Cir.1995) (en banc) (quoting Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 727 (3d Cir.1987)); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 30(d) (stating that failure to object to the court's jury instructions precludes appellate review, except as permitted under Rule 52(b)). To find plain error, we must conclude that (1) there was error; (2) the error was clear or obvious; (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the legal proceeding. United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d 170, 178 (3d Cir.2010). If the defendant satisfies this showing, we may, but are not required to, order correction. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735-36, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (explaining that the discretion conferred by plain error review should be employed in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result (internal quotation omitted)).