United States v. Vutera ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-30658
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN DUANE VUTERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(CR-94-90A)
_________________________________________________________________
March 25, 1996
Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from a jury conviction for four counts of
felony possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Appellant contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the firearm seized after the
installation and monitoring of an electronic tracking device on
the exterior of his vehicle. Because the deputies’ installation
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 95-30658
- 2 -
and monitoring of the tracking device was based on reasonable
suspicion that appellant was engaged in criminal activity, the
deputies’ use of the device did not violate appellant’s Fourth
Amendment rights. United States v. Michael, 645 F.2d 252, 257
(5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 950 (1981). The
firearm was discovered after a valid traffic stop when appellant
admitted that he had a firearm in the interior of the vehicle.
See United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1467 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2427 (1993).
Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting
the Government’s motion in limine regarding the knowledge element
of the offense. A conviction under § 922(g)(1) does not require
that a defendant know his conduct violates the law; rather the
defendant need only know that he possessed a firearm to have the
requisite intent. United States v. Perez, 897 F.2d 751 , 754
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 865 (1990); United States v.
Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988).
Appellant argues that he did not believe his possession of
firearms violated the law because he believed he had been
pardoned or his prior convictions had been expunged. Because
appellant did not show that he received a pardon or that his
prior convictions had been expunged, the district court did not
2
No. 95-30658
- 3 -
plainly err. United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206, 213 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 607 (1993).
Appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to give his requested jury instruction on
intent. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to give the requested jury instruction because it was
not a correct statement of the law. United States v. Correa-
Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070, 1076 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
3