United States v. Arturo Gonzalez

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Arturo Gonzalez. Read the opinion of the Court — 792 F.3d 534
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 24, 2015·No. 14-40344·Published

Opinion

Case: 14-40344 Document: 00513090792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40344 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, June 23, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellee Clerk

v.

ARTURO GONZALEZ, also known as Jay,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: Perhaps no firearm has attained the level of notoriety enjoyed by the AK- 47. Developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov (thus the “AK” name, which stands for “Автомат Калашникова” or “Automatic Kalashnikov”), it was first used in the late 1940s by the Red Army and soon thereafter by the armies of Soviet satellites. In the six decades since, its low cost, ease of use, and reliability have made the gun a staple in conflicts across the globe. Mexico has proven no exception, as the AK-47 has become popular among the drug cartels that operate on both sides of the border. Its Mexican nickname—“cuerno de chivo,” or “goat’s horn”—comes from the gun’s unique Case: 14-40344 Document: 00513090792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2015

No. 14-40344

appearance when attached to its curved magazine. See generally C.J. CHIVERS, THE GUN (2010) (chronicling the history of the AK-47).

That magazine rests at the center of the dispute in this case. We must decide whether a magazine is a “component” of the AK-47 for purposes of laws prohibiting the unlicensed export of firearms and certain related items. The problem of limited ammunition capacity has plagued rifles since their invention centuries ago. The earliest rifles fired a single shot, leaving the user vulnerable during reloading. Numerous inventions have sought to eliminate this problem. But from repeating rifles to clips, 1 none has proved as effective as the magazine. See generally David B. Kopel, The History of Firearm Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions, 78 ALBANY L. REV. 849 (2015). Magazines come in a variety of shapes, capacities, and types, but detachable “box” magazines have become the modern standard. A detachable box magazine stores cartridges in a column and attaches to the firearm. As the firearm cycles, a spring compression mechanism moves the cartridges up and loads the top cartridge into the breech. At a basic level, the detachable box magazine serves the same purpose as its predecessors: it makes it

1 “Magazines” and “clips” are often referred to interchangeably. Yet they serve different functions. A magazine generally attaches to a firearm and holds ammunition that will be fed into the chamber when the firearm is used. A clip is one step removed—it has no feeding spring, instead holding ammunition together as a unit, typically so that the ammunition can be conveniently stored or inserted into a magazine. 2 Case: 14-40344 Document: 00513090792 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2015

unnecessary to clumsily load a cartridge into the chamber every time the rifle is fired. But the unique and simple design also creates a more portable, reliable, high-capacity device that greatly enhances the capabilities of the firearm. The first AK-47s used a detachable box magazine, 2 and that is the type of magazine at issue in this case. Arturo Gonzalez’s sale of hundreds of these AK-47 magazines out of his army surplus stores in Laredo resulted in a jury convicting him of three counts of unlawful exporting. Viewed in the light most favorable to that verdict, the evidence showed that Gonzalez met with known affiliates of Mexican drug cartels and sold them AK-47 magazines knowing the magazines were being taken across the border to Mexico. Among other sales, Gonzalez sold hundreds of magazines at his store four blocks from the border to a man known as “El Gordo,” who paid $30,000 in cash with no receipt and “no questions asked.” ROA 915. Gonzalez and his employees put the magazines into boxes, taped them shut, and arranged for their pickup by drug cartel affiliates. During one such transaction, an employee overheard El Gordo tell Gonzalez that he “was going to take them to Mexico.” ROA 311. After federal agents started to investigate Gonzalez, they recorded a conversation between Gonzalez and El Gordo in which Gonzalez expressed fear about government surveillance. Multiple witnesses, including an undercover agent, offered additional testimony that Gonzalez knew the magazines were headed to Mexico. The State Department had not issued Gonzalez a license to export firearm components.

2 See Enemy Threat Weapons B2A2177, U.S. MARINE CORPS at 5 (No Date), available at http://www.usmcofficer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Enemy-Threat-Weapons.pdf. 3 Case: 14-40344 Document: 00513090792 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/24/2015

The sole argument Gonzalez raises on appeal with respect to the guilty verdicts is that empty AK-47 magazines are not a prohibited item under the export laws. The smuggling statute under which he was convicted broadly prohibits exporting an item “contrary to any law or regulation of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 554. The underlying law cited in Gonzalez’s indictment is the Arms Control Export Act, which criminalizes the unlicensed export of items “designated by the President” as “defense articles.” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), (c). The President’s designations of defense articles— promulgated as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls—are contained in the United States Munitions List. 22 C.F.R. § 121.1. The Munitions List defines defense articles to include designated firearms and their “components, parts, accessories, and attachments.” Id. at Category I(a), (b), (h). Gonzalez argues that empty AK-47 magazines do not qualify as firearm components because the Munitions List does not mention assault rifle magazines in the definition of “component.” It is true that the Munitions List does not specifically refer to magazines. But that is because the Munitions List is a list of categories, not specific products. For example, the Munitions List does not specifically list an AK-47 or even more generally an “assault rifle” as covered articles, but no one would doubt that an AK-47 falls within the “firearms” category and requires a license to export. The question is thus whether empty AK-47 magazines fit within the regulatory definition of “component.” See United States v. Nissen, 928 F.2d 690, 693–94 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Any definition that could reasonably be given to the term ‘sophisticated weaponry’ would include the Phantom F–4 fighter aircraft”). Because Gonzalez raised this issue in a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, we review de novo. See United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 441 (5th Cir. 2007) 4 Case: 14-40344 Document: 00513090792 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/24/2015

(“This court reviews de novo the . . . denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.”). A two-step analysis under the regulatory scheme provides a straightforward answer. The relevant State Department definitions state: (a) An end-item is a system, equipment, or an assembled article ready for its intended use. Only ammunition . . . is required to place it in an operating state. (b) A component is an item that is useful only when used in conjunction with an end-item. 22 C.F.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Arturo Gonzalez, (5th Cir. 2015).

United States v. Arturo Gonzalez (United States v. Arturo Gonzalez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Kay
513 F.3d 432 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Olano
507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court, 1993)
United States v. Karl Erik Nissen
928 F.2d 690 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Eduardo Flores
439 F. App'x 337 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Zhen Zhou Wu
711 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Hammoud
381 F.3d 316 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)