US v. Ogles

No. 03-10439 (4-28-05). This appeal takes aim at the meaning of "licensee" in the context of firearm dealers. The defendant was licensed in California to sell firearms; he set up a booth however in Arizona and was selling guns. He was convicted on a count of selling a gun to someone who wasn't a resident of the state he was in and the court granted a Rule 29 motion on the second count, which was selling in a state without having a license from that state. The 9th affirmed the conviction on count one, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the gov't, it held that the evidence could support such a conviction given that other dealers "warned him," the buyer produced a Arizona driver's license, and there were other sales. The 9th rejected the evidentiary arguments of against 404(b) as to the other sales. On the second count, the 9th reversed the Rule 29, holding that it wasn't double jeopardy because the court didn't resolve factual disputes but a legal issue as to the whether a defendant had to be licensed at all. The 9th rejected the approach of the 6th Circuit in Caldwell that would read "license" as requiring being licensed in any state; rather, the 9th joined the 11th Cir. in interpreting the statute as requiring that the license be that of the state