United States v. Dhingra ( 2021 )

Case: 21-20032 Document: 00516024420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-20032 September 22, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ajay Dhingra,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:19-CR-648-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ajay Dhingra was convicted at a bench trial of making a false state-
ment in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2) and possession of a firearm by a person adjudi-
cated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution in violation of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20032 Document: 00516024420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2021
No. 21-20032
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(4) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Dhingra contends that
there was insufficient evidence in support of his convictions.
We focus on whether substantial evidence supports the district
court’s conclusion that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and defer-
ring to the reasonable inferences drawn by the district court. United States v.
Tovar, 719 F.3d 376, 388 (5th Cir. 2013).
To establish a violation of § 922(a)(6), the government must dem-
onstrate “that the defendant knowingly made false statements and that such
statements were intended to deceive or likely to deceive a federally licensed
firearms dealer with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale.”
United States v. Diaz, 989 F.3d 390, 394 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States
v. Fields, 977 F.3d 358, 363 (5th Cir. 2020)), petition for cert. filed (U.S.
Aug. 18, 2021) (No. 21-5484). Under § 922(g)(4), it is unlawful for any per-
son “who has been adjudicated as [mentally ill] or who has been committed
to a mental institution” to possess a firearm. United States v. Giardina,
861 F.2d 1334, 1335 (5th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Heon Jong Yoo,
813 F. App’x 949, 952 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 904 (2020).
Despite Dhingra’s assertion that there is insufficient evidence estab-
lishing that he knew he had been committed to a mental institution, he stipu-
lated that he had been committed for inpatient mental health treatment in
February 2006. Additionally, during an August 2019 interview with federal
agents, Dhingra stated that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and
had been involuntarily committed. His father also testified that Dhingra has
expressed anger at his family for having him involuntarily committed.
Finally, although “[t]emporary, emergency detentions for treatment of men-
tal disorders or difficulties, which do not lead to formal commitments under
state law, do not constitute the commitment envisioned by 18 U.S.C. § 922,”
2
Case: 21-20032 Document: 00516024420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2021
No. 21-20032
the record demonstrates that Dhingra was formally committed to a mental
institution by a Texas probate court in accordance with Texas Health &
Safety Code § 574.034. See Giardina, 861 F.2d at 1337. Viewing this evi-
dence in the light most favorable to the government, there was sufficient evi-
dence justifying the district court’s conclusion that Dhingra was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of making a false statement in connection with the
purchase of a firearm and being in possession of a firearm after being com-
mitted to a mental institution. See Tovar, 719 F.3d at 388.
AFFIRMED.
3