United States v. Neal ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4211
MARK NEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-57)
Submitted: August 31, 1999
Decided: September 14, 1999
Before WIDENER, MOTZ and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Joseph N. Bowman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Pamela O. Barron, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Mark Neal appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle
without a valid driver's license in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West
Supp. 1999), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-300 (Michie 1998).
On appeal, Neal's only argument is that the district court erred in
holding that the Government need not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Neal knew that the license he possessed was invalid. Find-
ing no error, we affirm.
This appeal involves a question of law, which the court reviews de
novo. See United States v. McDonald, 61 F.3d 248, 254 (4th Cir.
1995). The statute that Neal was charged with violating reads, "[n]o
person . . . shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Com-
monwealth until such person has . . . obtained a driver's license, nor
unless the license is valid." Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-300. We find that
operating a motor vehicle is a highly regulated area and that Va. Code
Ann. § 46.2-300 may be interpreted as a public welfare statute. See
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605 (1994); United States v.
Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 263 (4th Cir. 1997). However, ignorance of the
facts is usually a defense to a strict liability offense under the public
welfare doctrine. See Wilson, 133 F.3d at 263. Neal did not raise a
mistake of fact defense or argue that he should not have been on con-
structive notice that his license was suspended. Neal's driving record
was entered into evidence showing that his license was suspended for
failure to comply with the licensing requirements of the motor vehicle
code. Neal should have been aware that his license was not valid due
to insurance requirements.
We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2