152027P.pdf   07/11/2017  United States  v.  Ronald White, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2027
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, for the Court En Banc] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. For the panel opinion in the matter, see 
   United States v. White, 824 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2016). The court overrules 
   United States v. Barr, 32 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1994), which held that where 
   the characteristics of the weapon itself render it 'quasi-suspect,' 
   Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)does not require proof that 
   the defendant knew of the specific characteristics of the weapon which 
   make it subject to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(a), 
   (f); held, in all cases in which a defendant is prosecuted under the 
   National Firearms Act for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, 
   the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 
   knew of the physical characteristics of the weapon bringing the weapon 
   within the ambit of the Act; here, the jury instructions failed to 
   adequately convey the government's burden under Staples, and defendant's 
   conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm is reversed; Section 
   II of the panel opinion reversing defendant's conviction for possession of 
   a stolen firearm is reinstated. Remanded for further proceedings. 
  
152027P.pdf   06/02/2016  United States  v.  Ronald White, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2027
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was insufficient to support 
   defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, but the 
   evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of an 
   unregistered firearm; a "Street Sweeper" is a quasi-suspect weapon such 
   that defendant could not have legitimately expected it to be free from 
   regulation, and the court did not err in overruling his objection to the 
   jury instructions' failure to require a finding that defendant knew of the 
   characteristics of the weapon which bring it under the coverage of the 
   National Firearms Act; the government must prove, however, that defendant 
   possessed the weapon and observed its characteristics, and the instruction 
   given to the jury covered both of these points; no error in permitting the 
   government to present evidence that law enforcement officers were 
   investigating defendant for a series of violent offenses as the evidence 
   explained officers' focus on defendant and the actions they took, such as 
   seizing his trash.