Introduction

This unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision affirms both a conviction for making false statements in the purchase of firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for involvement of firearms with obliterated serial numbers. The panel’s per curiam opinion clarifies two practical doctrines that routinely arise in firearms-procurement prosecutions and sentencing:

• Evidence and argument about a federally licensed firearms dealer’s (FFL’s) compliance—or noncompliance—with ATF regulations is not relevant to the buyer’s guilt under § 922(a)(6) where the defendant’s own intent to deceive is established; such evidence may also be excluded under Rule 403 because it risks confusing the issues.
• The § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement applies if any firearm involved in the offense had an altered or obliterated serial number, regardless of whether the defendant knew of the obliteration or caused it.

Although the opinion is non-precedential, it is a thorough application of evidence principles (Federal Rules of Evidence 401–403) and guideline law (including post-Dupree treatment of Sentencing Guidelines commentary) and is likely to be persuasive in future Eleventh Circuit district court practice.

Background and Parties

• Defendant–Appellant: Nicholas Craig Woozencroft
• Plaintiff–Appellee: United States of America
• FFL salesperson: Bob De Agua of Commercial Pawn Jewelry and Guns (Fort Lauderdale, FL)

In November and December 2021, Woozencroft acquired a total of 41 handguns on two purchase dates from a licensed dealer. He completed ATF Form 4473 for each purchase, certifying himself as the “actual buyer.” He later admitted to ATF that he bought the guns for three other individuals. In 2022, Canadian authorities recovered four of the guns; three had obliterated serial numbers. A federal grand jury indicted him on two § 922(a)(6) counts; the district court declared a mistrial on Count 1 (November purchase) and the jury convicted him on Count 2 (December purchase).

At sentencing, the court applied a base offense level of 12 (§ 2K2.1(a)(7)), added six levels for the number of firearms (25–99; § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C)), and added four levels for obliterated serial numbers (§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)), resulting in a total offense level of 22 and a 41-month prison term followed by one year of supervised release.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in all respects. The panel held:

• Evidentiary exclusions and jury instruction on FFL compliance: The district court acted within its discretion in precluding cross-examination and exhibits relating to the dealer’s ATF paperwork compliance and in instructing the jury not to consider whether the dealer could have prevented the crime. The evidence was irrelevant to the elements of § 922(a)(6)—particularly the defendant’s intent to deceive—and, in any event, properly excludable under Rule 403 due to the risk of confusing the issues.
• Sentencing enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B): The four-level enhancement for a firearm with an obliterated serial number was correctly applied. The guideline does not require proof that the defendant knew about, caused, or directed the obliteration; it applies strictly if any firearm involved had an obliterated serial number. The panel referenced the guideline commentary stating knowledge is irrelevant and found no contest to its validity.

The court also explained that even if any evidentiary exclusion was erroneous, the error would be harmless because the defendant’s own admissions and corroborating testimony established the § 922(a)(6) elements.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Elements of § 922(a)(6): United States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). The government must prove that the defendant knowingly made a false written statement in connection with a firearms purchase, intended to deceive or likely to deceive a licensed dealer, and that the false statement was material to the lawfulness of the sale. The panel focused on the “intent to deceive” prong and held it was “easily satisfied” by Woozencroft’s admitted false certifications on Form 4473 when he was not the actual purchaser.
• Relevance and trial management:
  • Fed. R. Evid. 401–403 (relevance; probative value versus risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury).
  • United States v. Russo, 717 F.2d 545, 551 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam): District courts have broad discretion over relevance determinations.
  • United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1264–66 (11th Cir. 2005): Abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; an abuse occurs if the court applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error of judgment.
  • United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984): Bias cross-examination is generally relevant; the panel distinguished this case, explaining that supposed bias or negligence by the dealer did not make any § 922(a)(6) element more or less probable.
  • United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 2008): Standard for reversing based on jury charges; requires inaccurate law or an instruction that misguides the jury in a way that violates due process. The instruction here—telling the jury not to consider the dealer’s regulatory compliance—correctly told jurors to focus on the defendant’s conduct and intent.
  • United States v. Barton, 909 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018): Even an abuse of discretion does not warrant reversal where the error is harmless. The panel noted any exclusion would have been harmless given the defendant’s admissions and corroborative testimony.
• Sentencing Guidelines application:
  • United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004): Guideline application reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed for clear error.
  • United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir. 1998): Defines clear error—left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
  • U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (2021): Four-level increase if any firearm had an altered or obliterated serial number; the commentary (n.8(B)) states the enhancement applies regardless of knowledge.
  • United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc): Courts may not defer to commentary absent uncertainty in the guideline text. The panel noted, however, that where the commentary’s validity is uncontested and clarifies any ambiguity, courts may rely on it.
  • United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 n.2, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023): The court has relied on commentary when no party contests its validity or its interpretation of the guideline’s text. Here neither side disputed the commentary, and the panel used it to confirm that knowledge is irrelevant for § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).

Legal Reasoning

1) Exclusion of FFL-compliance evidence under Rules 401 and 403. The core elements under § 922(a)(6) center on the defendant’s statements, intent, and the materiality of those statements to the lawfulness of the sale. The panel accepted the district court’s conclusion that the salesperson’s paperwork lapses (e.g., failure to sign the December form) and alleged knowledge of a third party did not alter whether the defendant intended to deceive the dealer with a false answer to the “actual buyer” question on Form 4473.

Although bias cross-examination is ordinarily relevant, it was not of “consequence in determining the action” here because, even crediting the defense theory, it would not make the defendant’s intent to deceive more or less probable. The court further held that, even if there were some marginal relevance, Rule 403 supported exclusion: inquiries into dealer compliance risked diverting jurors from the elements of the offense to collateral issues of FFL regulatory practice—creating confusion and misleading the jury. The decision to grant the government’s motion in limine and to deliver a clarifying jury instruction was therefore within the trial court’s broad discretion.

2) Jury instruction on ignoring FFL compliance issues. The instruction told jurors not to assess whether the dealer could have prevented the offense with better internal controls or greater care and not to consider the dealer’s regulatory compliance as bearing on guilt. Because § 922(a)(6) focuses on the defendant’s conduct and mental state, the instruction correctly cabined the jury’s attention to the elements that mattered. Under Williams, there was no misstatement of law or due process violation.

3) Application of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) without a knowledge requirement. The panel affirmed the four-level enhancement because three guns recovered in Canada had obliterated serial numbers. The text of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) does not include a mens rea requirement; the commentary confirms that knowledge is irrelevant. The panel carefully acknowledged Dupree’s limitation on commentary deference but noted that neither party contested the commentary’s validity, and, to the extent ambiguity existed, the commentary properly clarified the guideline’s operation. The panel also emphasized that the enhancement does not require the defendant to have obliterated the serial number or to have directed someone else to do so; it is enough that “any firearm” involved in the offense had an obliterated number.

Impact and Practical Implications

Trial-level practice in § 922(a)(6) cases. This opinion fortifies a line-drawing principle that will streamline trials: defendants cannot re-center the case on the FFL’s regulatory diligence or lapses where the elements turn on the defendant’s own statements and intent. Expect district courts to be more receptive to pretrial motions in limine that exclude FFL-compliance evidence as irrelevant or unduly confusing unless the defense can tie it directly to a core element (for example, to contest whether the defendant knowingly made a false statement or to establish a recognized defense).

Jury instructions. The case validates instructions that explicitly direct jurors not to weigh whether a dealer could have prevented the offense. Similar instructions may be adopted in future prosecutions to avoid jury confusion and to focus deliberations on the defendant’s conduct and mental state.

Sentencing: strict application of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). The opinion underscores that the serial-number obliteration enhancement applies regardless of knowledge or causation. Practically, this limits defense arguments seeking to avoid the enhancement by claiming ignorance or lack of involvement in the obliteration. Post-Dupree, the panel’s approach also signals that where the guideline text is silent on mens rea and the commentary is uncontested, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit may continue to apply the commentary to clarify operation.

Unpublished but persuasive. Although not precedential, district courts are likely to find the opinion persuasive for its straightforward application of Rules 401–403 to FFL-compliance evidence and for its careful, post-Dupree articulation of why § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) imposes a knowledge-free enhancement.

Practice Pointers

• For prosecutors:
  • Consider motions in limine to exclude dealer-compliance evidence where the defense cannot link it to an essential element—particularly the defendant’s intent to deceive.
  • Request jury instructions emphasizing that dealer diligence or negligence is not a defense to § 922(a)(6).
  • At sentencing, document any evidence that “any firearm” involved had an obliterated serial number; knowledge is not required for § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).
• For defense counsel:
  • To keep FFL-compliance evidence in, be prepared to articulate a specific, non-speculative link to a § 922(a)(6) element (e.g., to challenge whether a “false” statement was knowingly made), rather than general negligence or bias.
  • On § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), unless the guideline text or commentary is successfully challenged under Dupree, arguments about lack of knowledge or lack of causation are unlikely to prevail.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (False statement in firearm purchase): It is a crime to knowingly make a false, material written statement in connection with purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, with the intent to deceive (or that is likely to deceive) the dealer. The “actual buyer” question on ATF Form 4473 is material because federal law prohibits straw purchases—someone buying on behalf of another person. The Supreme Court has recognized the materiality of the “actual buyer” question in this context (see Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), not cited by the panel but foundational to modern straw-purchase doctrine).
• ATF Form 4473, Question 21A (“Are you the actual transferee/buyer?”): Buyers must certify that they are the actual purchaser. If they are buying the firearm for someone else, answering “Yes” is typically false and material. As the district court noted (and the panel referenced), the sale could not lawfully proceed without a “Yes” to this question.
• Relevance and Rule 403: Evidence is relevant if it makes any material fact more or less probable. Even relevant evidence can be excluded if it risks unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting time. Here, FFL compliance evidence risked shifting the jury’s focus from the defendant’s mens rea to the dealer’s procedures.
• Standards of appellate review:
  • Abuse of discretion (evidentiary rulings): A deferential standard; reversal requires showing the trial court used the wrong legal standard, made clearly erroneous factual findings, or made a clear error in judgment.
  • De novo (application of guidelines): The appellate court independently interprets the guideline.
  • Clear error (factual findings at sentencing): The appellate court will uphold findings unless left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
• U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (Obliterated serial number enhancement): Adds four offense levels if any firearm involved in the offense had an altered or obliterated serial number. The enhancement is effectively strict liability: the defendant’s knowledge or participation in the obliteration is irrelevant.
• Guidelines commentary after Dupree: In the Eleventh Circuit, courts should not defer to commentary that adds to an unambiguous guideline. However, where there is uncertainty and the commentary clarifies the text—and where the parties do not contest the commentary’s validity—courts may rely on it. The panel applied this approach to note 8(B) of § 2K2.1.

Conclusion

United States v. Woozencroft delivers two clear messages for firearms cases in the Eleventh Circuit. First, a defendant charged under § 922(a)(6) for false statements on Form 4473 cannot shift the jury’s focus to a dealer’s regulatory missteps. The material questions are the defendant’s statements and intent; evidence of FFL noncompliance is generally irrelevant and, at best, excluded under Rule 403 for risk of confusion. Second, the four-level enhancement for obliterated serial numbers under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) applies without regard to the defendant’s knowledge or whether he caused the obliteration—if any firearm involved had an obliterated number, the enhancement attaches.

Even as an unpublished disposition, the opinion provides persuasive, practice-oriented guidance: keep § 922(a)(6) trials centered on the defendant’s conduct and mental state, and expect strict application of the serial-number enhancement unless and until a party mounts a successful textual challenge under the post-Dupree framework. The case underscores the judiciary’s consistent approach to straw-purchase prosecutions and firearms sentencing—prioritizing clear proof of the defendant’s own deception and applying guideline enhancements as written.