## Facts

- Oliver King, a Canadian citizen present in the United States as a nonimmigrant alien, was not eligible to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) in his own name.
- King met Amir Zarandi, a U.S. citizen, and proposed opening a firearms business in Washington State using an FFL obtained in Zarandi’s name.
- King arranged the paperwork and business structure for the license application and the operation of the business (MHPS, LLC), with Zarandi as the named licensee.
- After the FFL issued, King used the license and the business to obtain firearms, including purchases he made for himself without Zarandi’s knowledge.
- King entered the United States from Canada 18 times while setting up and conducting the firearms business and was stopped for questioning by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials 15 of those times.
- When CBP officers asked the purpose of his entries, King repeatedly lied and concealed that his trips were connected to firearms-related activity.
- A jury convicted King of (1) unlawfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without being a licensee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and (2) making false statements to federal officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- The district court denied King’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, and King appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), the government had to prove King was not acting as an “authorized agent” of the licensed dealer, and whether King was entitled to a jury instruction adding that requirement.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show King was “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms within the meaning of § 922(a)(1)(A).
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show King’s false statements to CBP were material under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying King’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed King’s convictions and affirmed the denial of his Rule 33 motion.
- The court held that § 922(a)(1)(A) does not include an “authorized agent” exception and the district court properly refused a jury instruction that would have added that extra requirement.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find King was engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even though the FFL was issued in Zarandi’s name.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to establish materiality for the § 1001 counts because King’s lies about the purpose of entry were capable of influencing CBP’s decisions and activities.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), the relevant exception is limited to a person who is himself a “licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer”; the statute does not require the government to prove the defendant was not an “authorized agent” of a licensee.
- A defendant is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms when the defendant goes beyond occasional hobbyist or collector activity and devotes time, attention, and labor to firearms transactions as a trade or business, with the intent to earn profit from repeated purchases and sales.
- For “engaged in the business” under § 922(a)(1)(A), it is not necessary to prove an actual completed sale of a firearm.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, a federal agency’s decisions or activities; actual reliance or actual influence is not required.
- A district court’s denial of a Rule 33 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a new trial is not warranted unless the Rule 33 requirements are met (including that claimed “new” evidence would likely produce an acquittal).

## Conclusion

United States v. King affirmed convictions for unlicensed firearms dealing and materially false statements to CBP, holding that § 922(a)(1)(A) does not add an “authorized agent” defense, that the evidence supported a finding King was engaged in the business of dealing firearms, that his border-entry lies were material under § 1001, and that the district court properly denied a new trial.


United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098 (2013)