United States v. Marilyn Buck

Citations: 804 F.2d 239; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33688Docket: 86-1200

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; November 2, 1986; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Marilyn Buck appeals her conviction for transporting a firearm and ammunition across state lines, violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g). She was sentenced to five years in prison, consecutive to prior sentences. Buck argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she transported the weapon across state lines. The appeal follows her arrest on May 11, 1985, in Dobbs Ferry, New York, where she was found with a loaded .38 caliber revolver in her handbag.

The government's case relied on surveillance conducted by the FBI and local police, which tracked Buck from Baltimore, Maryland, through Delaware and New Jersey, to an apartment in the Bronx, New York. After a brief stop, Buck and her accomplice, Linda Sue Evans, drove through Connecticut before visiting a shopping center in New York. Over the course of the evening, they exhibited evasive driving patterns and made several stops, including at gas stations and supermarkets. The surveillance agents lost track of them for a period but eventually located their vehicle parked at a motel. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient by the court to affirm Buck's conviction.

At around 9:30 a.m. the following day, Buck and Evans were arrested in Dobbs Ferry after leaving a motel. At the time of her arrest, Buck had a handbag containing a revolver wrapped in a towel labeled 'Inn Town Motel.' The day after her arrest, Buck wrote a detailed letter, approximately 1000 words long, documenting her and Evans’ activities from their departure from the Bronx at 5:50 p.m. on May 10 until their arrest. The letter, structured with headings like "Detailed sequence of events," "Possible ways of how got to us," and "Traces," described specific events and observations in chronological order.

Notable details include arriving at a location identified as 'H' at 6:50 p.m., driving around a parking lot, observing various vehicles and people, and noting their movements until 7:50 p.m. After 8:19 p.m., Buck detailed driving across a bridge and observing a previously noted car that appeared to be following them. She described various encounters with vehicles and individuals, indicating a growing sense of being watched. The letter concluded with their decision to drive closer to the motel to ditch their car after being informed that a cab they were waiting for was off duty. Buck noted cleaning the car and discarding an oil receipt before they made this decision.

Buck and Evans drove to Dobbs Ferry the morning after an unspecified event, observing various vehicles, including a maroon car, a blue van, and a brown car linked to a man they had seen earlier. They were subsequently arrested, but Buck's letter did not indicate that they had acquired a weapon during their trip. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), it is illegal for convicted felons or fugitives to transport firearms across state lines. Buck, a convicted felon and fugitive at the time of her arrest, was found in possession of a loaded revolver. She claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove she transported the weapon across state lines, arguing that there was no direct evidence of possession in two states, that the agents' surveillance was not continuous, and that her letter did not detail every event relevant to the timeline. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies heavily on those contesting the sufficiency of evidence, with the government only needing to show reasonable doubt regarding guilt. The court ultimately concluded that Buck failed to meet her burden of proof regarding her appeal.

Interstate transportation of a weapon can be established through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may involve firsthand testimony confirming the defendant possessed the weapon while crossing state lines. Most cases regarding the interstate transportation element of the Sec. 922(g) offense rely on circumstantial evidence, which can be sufficient for a conviction. For instance, in *United States v. Little*, evidence included the defendant's prior knowledge of a stolen gun collection, transferring guns, and later selling them in a different state, leading the court to conclude that the jury could infer interstate transportation from possession of recently stolen property. Other cases, such as *United States v. Lehmann* and *United States v. Phillips*, similarly upheld convictions based on circumstantial evidence of possession across state lines.

The excerpt clarifies that direct evidence of possession in two states is not strictly necessary to prove interstate transportation. For example, if Buck had been continuously surveilled while transporting a weapon and was found with it upon arrival in another state, it would support an inference of interstate transportation. However, in Buck's case, the surveillance was interrupted, allowing for the possibility of her acquiring the weapon during these breaks. Despite these gaps, the jury could infer that Buck did not obtain the weapon after entering Connecticut based on her detailed account of events during the trip, although the account lacked completeness regarding certain activities. The extent of detail in her description affects the weight of the evidence, which is determined by the jury.

The jury could reasonably view the letter as filling gaps in surveillance in two significant ways. First, the narrative suggests that Buck and Evans were engaged in maneuvers to assess potential surveillance rather than acquiring a weapon during the first surveillance gap. Second, Buck’s concerns about how law enforcement might have tracked them, as reflected in her speculations in the letter, imply that the acquisition of the gun may have involved surveillance or tracking. The letter's detailed content and Buck's specific worries suggest that if she had acquired a gun after leaving the Bronx, it would likely have been mentioned. Overall, the evidence, when viewed favorably to the government, supports the conclusion that Buck transported the weapon across state lines. All of Buck's appeal arguments were considered and deemed without merit, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.