United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005-09-09
18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury conviction on Count I (felon in possession, 922(g)(1), with aiding and abetting) and Count II (possession of stolen firearms, 922(j)) after a gun-store burglary; Rule 29 motion denied; divided panel reverses both counts for insufficient evidence (one judge dissenting); result: claimant-lost; claim: (g)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: this panel opinion was reheard en banc and the convictions were AFFIRMED, United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc), a separate IR record (/f3d/454/0390-01). The panel-majority possession block therefore carries `scope superseded` (the scope was widened in wave 2 to cover displacement by another record) and is not an instance; the en banc opinion should be annotated as its own .case file. The fact of supersession is annotator knowledge confirmed from the other record's opening, not from this record's pinned text.
Count II is 18 U.S.C. 922(j) (possession of stolen firearms; elements: possession, stolen, knowing, interstate travel), reversed both as principal (same no-possession reasoning) and as aider and abettor (no evidence of participation or knowledge of the principals' intent). The law file covers only 922(g), so the 922(j) holdings have no block.
Accomplice liability (18 U.S.C. 2) is an overlay on the elements: the status element is tested against the principals, not the defendant. The notation cannot say "element of the offence as committed by another", so the aiding-and-abetting block is `not-reached` / role background / scope procedural with `party` + `theory`, and the absence of proof of the principals' felon status is carried by its fact lines and gloss only.
The ruling that the government's "flight as consciousness of guilt" closing argument was an abuse of discretion (flight tied to the burglary, not to the federal offences) is an evidentiary/argument ruling integrated into the sufficiency analysis; no element id, mentioned only in gloss.
Known misfit 6: majority and dissent draw opposite inferences from the same undisputed facts (crawling out of the cubbyhole, guns with accomplices, no fingerprints); polarity is per block, so the same fact appears with different weight in two blocks, and the dissent's rebuttal of the no-fingerprint point (expert: prints are rarely recovered from firearms) is not captured.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · provedNot counted: applied/dissent ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/superseded | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) An interstate-nexus expert testified that 14 of the 15 recovered guns affected interstate commerce; not contested or discussed on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / dissent basis: proved; claim: (g)(1); count: Count I, defendant as principal; theory: possession inferred circumstantially: defendant as the inside man who removed the guns and passed them out; opinion: dissent (Hamilton); subject: count=Count I, defendant as principal; theory=possession inferred circumstantially: defendant as the inside man who removed the guns and passed them out; opinion=dissent (Hamilton) The dissent would uphold sufficiency: one uncluttered 18-inch cubbyhole, guns three feet inside, a timed smash-and-grab at 5:30 a.m., and flight permit the inference that he took the guns from the cabinets and handed them out. It does not say whether that is actual or constructive possession ("actually or constructively possessed"). | inferred-handling-as-inside-man-in-gun-store-burglary | Officer Walters saw Moye crawling out of the store through the cubbyhole below the side door’s knob. This cubbyhole was the only one that was not cluttered with boxes and/or store equipment/merchandise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [25787:25989] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The distance between the side-by-side doors and the store’s gun display cabinets, which ran perpendicular to the doors, is approximately three feet.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [25606:25754] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The car was found to contain thirteen firearms and two more were recovered on Briggs’ person.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [24827:24920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The fingerprints of Cooper, Briggs, and Moye were not found on any of the firearms.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [24921:25004] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.With two reasonable interpretations available to the jury, it was for the jury, not this court, to decide which version was more credible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [32609:32747] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.In this case, the jury was entitled to reach the reasonable and quite unremarkable conclusion that Moye possessed the firearms as they made their way from the store to Briggs’ person and the getaway car.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [33105:33308] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: no-evidence; claim: (g)(1); count: Count I, defendant as principal; theory: constructive possession (government did not allege actual possession); opinion: panel majority (reheard en banc; convictions affirmed, 454 F.3d 390, IR /f3d/454/0390-01 -- not yet annotated); subject: count=Count I, defendant as principal; theory=constructive possession (government did not allege actual possession); opinion=panel majority (reheard en banc; convictions affirmed, 454 F.3d 390, IR /f3d/454/0390-01 -- not yet annotated) Panel majority: being caught crawling out of the burgled gun store, and fleeing, while the stolen guns were in the getaway car and on an accomplice, is "mere presence"; flight shows consciousness of guilt of the burglary, not of the federal possession offences. NOT GOOD LAW: see first misfit (reversed on rehearing en banc). | presence-at-scene-of-gun-store-burglary | Moye was seen by another officer crawling out of the doorway at Bart’s after Cooper took off. Moye ran but was caught a short time later.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1532:1669] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.Thirteen firearms were found inside the vehicle. Briggs was later apprehended with two firearms in his pocket.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1421:1531] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.No weapons were found in Moye’s possession and Moye’s fingerprints were not on the weapons recovered from Briggs and Cooper.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1670:1794] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The Government did not present testimony that Moye had been seen with any of the guns.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6804:6890] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.that the defendant exercised, or had the power to exercise, dominion and control over the item.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [5656:5751] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.However, mere presence at the location where contraband is found is insufficient to establish possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [5857:5962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The only evidence the Government presented to support constructive possession was that Moye was present in the same location from which the guns were stolen.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6506:6663] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.Because no evidence exists that Moye was ever in a position to exercise dominion and control over the weapons, we conclude that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moye was a felon in possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6891:7132] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1); party: Moye; subject: party=Moye He did challenge admission of the certified record and fingerprint comparison (authenticity/hearsay); rejected in a footnote as meritless (self-authenticating public record). CAVEAT: rests on one sentence noting the point was unchallenged, in a panel opinion that was later reheard en banc (see first misfit); a record of an uncontested fact of this case, not authority on the status element. | prior-felony/certified-record-of-conviction | The Government also introduced a Certified Record of Conviction Under Seal showing that Moye had previously been convicted of a felony handgun violation as well as a certificate of the non-restoration of Moye’s civil rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [2212:2436] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.Moye does not challenge his status as a convicted felon.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [5142:5198] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural claim: (g)(1); party: Briggs and Cooper (the putative principals); count: Count I, aiding-and-abetting theory (18 U.S.C. 2); theory: aiding and abetting a felon in possession requires that the person aided be a felon; subject: party=Briggs and Cooper (the putative principals); count=Count I, aiding-and-abetting theory (18 U.S.C. 2); theory=aiding and abetting a felon in possession requires that the person aided be a felon REAL RULING: jury-instruction error on the aiding-and-abetting route (18 U.S.C. 2) - the instruction had no evidentiary foundation because nothing showed the putative principals (Briggs, Cooper) were felons; the AUSA conceded the error; it could not be harmless once principal-liability evidence was held insufficient (the court adds "sufficient evidence did not exist as to aiding and abetting in Count I"). Not a holding on the status.g1 element of the charged defendant - Moye's own felon status is conceded (block above) - and the law file declares no id for accomplice liability; hence not-reached, role background, scope procedural. CAVEAT: part of the panel opinion that was reheard en banc (see first misfit). | prior-felony/principal-in-aiding-and-abetting-theory | It is clear that no foundation in the evidence supported an aiding and abetting instruction as to this count because the Government introduced no evidence that Briggs or Cooper were felons.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [11552:11741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.During oral argument, the AUSA conceded that giving the jury an aiding and abetting instruction on Count I was error.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [11434:11551] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.It is implicit in a charge of aiding and abetting that the underlying crime was committed by someone other than the defendant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [8952:9078] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The district court erred as a matter of law in giving the instruction on this count as it was a logical impossibility for the instruction to apply to Count I, felon in possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [11742:11921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |