Opinion ID: 2981031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Gray first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We review de novo the denial of a motion for acquittal and view the evidence in “a light most favorable to the prosecution, giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the testimony.” United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 537 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 976 (2007). The relevant question in assessing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We do not weigh the evidence, consider witness credibility, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury. United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. M/G Transp. Servs., Inc., 173 F.3d 584, 588-89 (6th Cir. 1999)). The sufficiency-of-the-evidence burden borne by the defendant is a heavy one. Id. at 449. The relevant statute in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), prohibits anyone who is not “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer” from “engag[ing] in the business of -7- No. 11-1305 United States v. Gray importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms.” As applied to a dealer in firearms, “engaging in the business” means that the individual “devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C). Section 922(a)(1)(A) does not apply to a person who occasionally sells, exchanges, or purchases firearms to enhance a personal collection or as a hobby, “or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” Id. “The term ‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents.” 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(22). However, “a defendant need not deal in firearms as his primary business for conviction.” United States v. Manthey, 92 F. App’x 291, 297 (6th Cir. 2004). Gray does not contest that he purchased and sold firearms. Instead, he argues that his actions were part of selling and adding to his personal collection of firearms and that he did not have the principal objectives of profit and livelihood. The Government, however, submitted sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Gray was buying and selling guns for livelihood and profit rather than simply changing the composition of his personal collection. We have previously held that evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(a)(1)(A) where it showed (1) that the defendant frequented flea markets and gun shows where he displayed and sold guns; (2) that the defendant offered to sell guns to confidential informants on multiple occasions and actually sold them three different guns on two different occasions; (3) and -8- No. 11-1305 United States v. Gray that the defendant bought and sold guns for profit. See United States v. Orum, 106 F. App’x 972, 974 (6th Cir. 2004). Gray’s circumstances are similar to those in Orum. He used 101 Outdoors to display and sell guns. Signs and flyers for 101 Outdoors advertised that the store dealt in firearms and ammunition. 101 Outdoors displayed guns—some of which had price tags—in a set-aside area and on at least one occasion on unsupervised folding tables near the road. The evidence presented also established that Gray sold firearms to ATF agents, a confidential informant, and other individuals. He told one agent that he could get any handgun the agent wanted. Gray purchased and traded guns from people that brought them to 101 Outdoors, and he resold some of his new purchases or trades shortly after he acquired them, usually at a profit. Gray kept records of some of his transactions, and he moved his firearm selling operation with 101 Outdoors into its new location in downtown Lawton. Although Gray argues that the Government only proved that two guns were sold shortly after Gray purchased them, the statute does not establish a minimum threshold for the number of guns sold. That Gray sold only two or three with a short turnaround was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that he had a profit motive in his gun sales. While cases Gray cites did involve significantly more gun sales than this case, see United States v. Kish , 424 F. App’x 398 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding sufficient evidence for conviction where nearly 500 guns were seized some of which had been sold or traded to the defendants and were seized with price tags on them); United States v. Dettra, 238 F. App’x 424 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding sufficient evidence for conviction where ninety- -9- No. 11-1305 United States v. Gray five guns were seized, of which eighty-two were marked with price tags), they do not foreclose the possibility of conviction on a smaller number of guns. Gray also claims that there was no proof that he committed the offense willfully. To be convicted under § 922(a)(1)(A), the defendant “must also have known that his conduct was unlawful.” Manthey, 92 F. App’x at 296-97 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 196 (1998)). Gray notes that the open and obvious manner in which he operated out of 101 Outdoors suggests that he was not a willful violator. He also claims that ATF never warned him that his activities may be illegal. The Government presented evidence from which the jury could conclude that Gray knew his conduct was unlawful. There was testimony that Gray had previously held a FFL. Thus, he was aware that a FFL is required to sell guns for profit and livelihood; it follows that he was likely aware that to do so without a FFL was unlawful. See Orum, 106 F. App’x at 974. Gray was also considering obtaining another FFL, and a blank form was discovered on his kitchen table. Further, Rivard testified that Gray told her that he knew about the FFL requirement. This was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Gray’s actions were a willful violation of the statute. That Gray operated his business openly was a fact for the jury to consider in determining whether Gray knew his conduct was unlawful; it is not dispositive of the issue. Also, there is no requirement that a defendant be warned that his conduct is unlawful. - 10 - No. 11-1305 United States v. Gray Finding sufficient evidence for the jury to find Gray guilty as to Count I, we affirm Gray’s conviction for selling firearms without a license.