Opinion ID: 1002035
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A person who --

Text: with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part . . . . .... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 511(a)(1). Dizelos requested that the jury also be instructed that, in order to convict, it must find that Dizelos acted with knowledge that [his] conduct [was] unlawful and with intent to do something the law forbids. That is to say, with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. J.A. 107. The district court refused. 10 In United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102 (4th Cir. 1990), this court specifically recognized that, while § 511(a)(1) requires that a person knowingly remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the VIN to be convicted, `[k]nowingly' in this context means only `knowing action' by the defendant. Id. at 110 (citing United States v. Enochs, 857 F.2d 491, 492 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding thatsection 511(a) does not require that the defendant act with specific intent to violate the law)); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 262 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (holding that the Clean Water Act'sknowing mens rea requires only that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal, not that he know that his conduct was illegal). The district court properly instructed the jury as to § 511(a)'s knowing requirement and, accordingly, did not err in refusing Dizelos' request that the jury be provided with the proposed additional instruction that it must find that Dizelos acted with specific intent or a purpose to disobey the law.