Mershimer v. Bowers , 395 F. App'x 993 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-2172
    JERRY LYNN MERSHIMER; LORI LORAINE MERSHIMER, d/b/a Spirit
    Gun Shop,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    CARLTON BOWERS, Director of Industry Operations Charlotte
    Field Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
    Explosives,
    Defendant – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (2:07-cv-00025-LHT)
    Submitted:   September 17, 2010         Decided:     September 29, 2010
    Before KING and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and    HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants.  Edward
    R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Sidney P. Alexander,
    Assistant United States Attorney, David C. Lieberman, Associate
    Chief Counsel, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry Lynn and Lori Loraine Mershimer, d/b/a Spirit
    Gun Shop (“Spirit”), appeal the district court’s order granting
    summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) and dismissing its petition for
    review   of     the   ATF’s     final    administrative     decision     revoking
    Spirit’s firearms dealer’s license for violations of the Gun
    Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 921-30
     (2006), and its
    implementing regulations.             Spirit argues that the district court
    erred    in    granting     summary      judgment   on    the   basis    of    the
    administrative        record    and     because   its    violations     were   not
    willful.      We affirm.
    We review de novo the district court’s adverse grant
    of summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most
    favorable to Spirit.           Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 
    556 F.3d 165
    ,
    167 (4th Cir. 2009).           Summary judgment may be granted only when
    “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the
    movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”                      Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 56(c)(2).          After notice and opportunity for a hearing,
    the Attorney General may “revoke any license issued pursuant to
    
    18 U.S.C. § 923
     if the holder of such license has willfully
    violated any provision of the GCA or any rule or regulation
    prescribed by the Attorney General under the GCA.”                      Am. Arms
    Int’l v. Herbert, 
    563 F.3d 78
    , 82 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
    2
    quotation marks, alterations, and ellipsis omitted).                                        Summary
    judgment in favor of the ATF is proper “if no genuine issue of
    material       fact    exists         about     whether      the        licensee          willfully
    violated an applicable statutory or regulatory provision.”                                        
    Id.
    (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).                                        A willful
    violation of the GCA or its implementing regulations is present
    where    a    licensee          deliberately         disregards         or    exhibits        plain
    indifference toward his known legal obligations.                              
    Id. at 84
    .
    We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs
    and   conclude        that       summary      judgment      in     the       ATF’s       favor    was
    proper.        Spirit       admitted        violating       the    GCA       and    implementing
    regulations      by        failing     to     timely      record       the     disposition         of
    twenty-seven firearms, and we have no trouble concluding that
    Spirit’s violations were willful.
    As a firearms licensee, Spirit was required by the GCA
    and     applicable          regulations         to       comply        with    a         number    of
    recordkeeping         requirements          administered          by    the    ATF.         See    
    18 U.S.C. § 923
    .        In    accordance          with   the        GCA    and        applicable
    regulations, Spirit was also subject to compliance inspections
    of its premises.            In April 1997, the ATF conducted an inspection
    and   cited     Spirit          for   failing       to    properly       record          transferee
    identification             information,         in        violation           of     
    27 C.F.R. § 478.124
    (c) (2010), and failing to maintain a repair record, in
    violation      of     
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e)         (2010).               The    inspector
    3
    reviewed his violations report with principal Jerry Mershimer.
    A warning letter was subsequently sent to Spirit, reminding it
    that its license was conditioned upon compliance with federal
    firearms laws and regulations and that repeat violations “will
    be viewed as willful, and may result in the revocation of [the]
    license.”
    The ATF conducted its next inspection in March 2002,
    and the inspector’s violations report cites Spirit for, among
    other     violations,       failing        to    timely        record       the    sale    or
    disposition       of      fifteen     firearms       in        the    acquisition         and
    dispositions      record,     in    violation      of     
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e).
    The     inspector      reviewed      the    violations         report       and     relevant
    provisions    of    the     GCA    and     regulations        with    Jerry       Mershimer.
    Included    in     this    regulatory       review      was     a    list    of     Spirit’s
    recordkeeping obligations under 
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e).
    In January 2006, the ATF conducted another inspection,
    and the inspector’s violations report cites Spirit for, among
    many other violations, failing to timely record the purchase or
    other acquisition of over 180 firearms and failing to timely
    record the sale or other disposition of twenty-one firearms in
    the acquisitions and dispositions record, in violation of 
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e).          As before, the inspector reviewed both the
    violations       report     and     relevant      provisions         of     the    GCA    and
    regulations with Jerry Mershimer.                On February 16, 2007, the ATF
    4
    issued a Notice of Revocation of License (“NORL”) to Spirit.
    Four days later, the ATF conducted yet another inspection, and
    the inspector determined that, since the 2006 inspection, Spirit
    had again violated 
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e) by failing to timely
    record the disposition of six firearms in the acquisition and
    dispositions record.               In May 2007, the ATF issued an amended
    NORL     to    Spirit,         alleging     six    charges       of    numerous       willful
    violations of the GCA and implementing regulations as grounds
    for the revocation of its firearms dealer’s license.
    At Spirit’s request, the ATF held a hearing in June
    2007.         The    hearing     officer     determined        that    Spirit     willfully
    violated the GCA and its implementing regulations by failing to
    timely    record         the    disposition       of    twenty-seven          firearms,     in
    violation           of    
    18 U.S.C. § 923
    (g)(1)(A)            and      
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e),            and    falsely     recording          the    transfer        of    two
    firearms, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (m) (2006).                                 Following
    the hearing, the ATF served Spirit with a final NORL.
    Spirit filed a petition for de novo judicial review of
    the     revocation         of     its     license,       pursuant        to     
    18 U.S.C. § 923
    (f)(3).             It     contested    the       ATF’s     conclusions         that   it
    willfully violated the GCA and regulations.                           The Respondent ATF
    official       moved      for    summary     judgment.           In    response,       Spirit
    maintained that, although it had failed to timely record the
    5
    disposition of the twenty-seven firearms, its failures were not
    willful.
    Based on our review of the record, we agree with the
    district court that Spirit’s admitted violations were willful.
    The   facts     readily   reveal   that,      by   the   time   of    the    2007
    inspection,     Spirit    had   known   for   nearly     a   decade   that   its
    firearms license was conditioned upon its compliance with the
    GCA and its implementing regulations, and that such compliance
    included      adherence    to    the    recordkeeping        requirements     of
    
    27 C.F.R. § 478.125
    (e).         Despite this knowledge, however, in the
    ensuing years prior to the issuance of the original NORL, Spirit
    failed to comply with those recordkeeping provisions in at least
    216 instances.      Such failures occurred even though the ATF had
    conducted reviews of the violations reports and a regulatory
    review   with    Jerry    Mershimer.        Moreover,    Spirit’s     recording
    failures continued even after the issuance of the original NORL.
    The violations reports, warning letter, regulatory review, and
    even the issuance of a revocation notice were not enough to
    bring Spirit into compliance.           In view of these circumstances,
    we conclude that Spirit was plainly indifferent toward its legal
    obligations.
    We also reject Spirit’s claims of error, raised for
    the first time on appeal, concerning the authentication of the
    administrative record and the district court’s reliance on it.
    6
    See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 
    134 F.3d 1222
    , 1227
    (4th Cir.   1998).   We   therefore   affirm   the   district    court’s
    order.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately set forth in the briefs and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2172

Citation Numbers: 395 F. App'x 993

Judges: King, Agee, Hamilton

Filed Date: 9/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024