United States of America, Appellee, v. Roy Rogers Fauntleroy, Appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 488 F.2d 79

Submitted Nov. 11, 1973.Decided Dec 4, 1973

Jay Tronfeld, Richmond, Va. [court-appointed], for appellant.

Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., and Raymond A. Carpenter, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Roy Rogers Fauntleroy appeals from his conviction by the district court sitting without a jury on two counts charging him with knowingly making false statements in the purchase of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(6).1 Fauntleroy was sentenced to concurrent three-year prison terms on the two counts.


1

18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a) (6) provides that:

(a) It shall be unlawful-

(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.

2

The case of United States v. Brown, 458 F.2d 375 (6 Cir. 1972), is nearly identical to the one at bar. Brown was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(6). Gilbert, the store manager who sold the gun, testified that he asked Brown the questions [including 8(b)] from the firearms transaction form. Brown contended, as does appellant here, that he could not read and that the salesman did not read the questions to him. In upholding the conviction, the Sixth Circuit stated:

In finding appellant guilty . . . , the jury must have credited Gilbert's testimony that he had asked Brown the required questions and that Brown had responded falsely. That determination of credibility was within the province of the jury. Accordingly, since there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, it will be sustained. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). [458 F.2d at 376.]

The only difference in the cases is that this appellant was tried by the court without a jury, a distinction that would have no effect on the result in Brown.