United States v. Belmont, 15-3721

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Citation: 831 F.3d 1098
• Docket Number: No. 15-3721,15-3721
• Parties: United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey Belmont Defendant-Appellant
• Decision Date: 08 August 2016

831 F.3d 1098

United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Belmont Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-3721

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2016
Filed: August 8, 2016

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Dean Alan Stowers, of West Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Douglas Richard Semisch, AUSA, of Omaha, NE.

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Jeffrey L. Belmont pled guilty to manufacturing explosives in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(a)(1), 844(a)(1). He reserved the right to appeal the meaning of “engage in the business” in § 842(a)(1). The district court¹ sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, two years' supervised release, and a fine of $100. Belmont appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

A search of a shed on Belmont's property yielded 36 completed M-series improvised explosive devices (IEDs)—found next to a hydraulic press located on a work bench—and 28 partially completed IEDs. The completed IEDs were functional; the partially completed IEDs lacked only fuses. All the IEDs—commonly called M80s—had over 130 milligrams of an explosive material. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), all the IEDs had a perchlorate explosive mixture of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder—the primary ingredients for flash powder, a covered material under the explosives statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 841(d) ; 27 C.F.R. § 555.23. A search of Belmont's home yielded over 1,000 pounds of potassium perchlorate, over 1,000 pounds of aluminum powder, and large spools of fuse. Also found in the home: (1) various invoices and shipping documents for small quantities of tubes and end caps, addressed to Belmont; (2) over 1,000 candy-striped cardboard tubes of various sizes, most with one end cap; and (3) many sizes of end caps.

Other items in Belmont's shed included: (a) metal mixing bowls, funnels, and sifting screens; (b) a white trash bag with 45 candy-striped cardboard tubes, measuring 6? x 1.25? with plastic end caps on one end; (c) a cardboard box with 765 candy-striped cardboard tubes of assorted sizes; (d) another box with 53 red cardboard tubes 2.5? x 1? in size; (e) 104 red cardboard tubes 2? x 9/16? in size; (f) a bucket with 85 red cardboard tubes 2.5? x 1? in size, and two silver cardboard tubes ½? x 1.25? with hobby fuse in each tube, plus one red-and-white tube 3? x 5? in size, and various paper end plugs; (g) a plastic trash bag with

831 F.3d 1100

paper and plastic end caps and plugs; (h) a plastic container with hydraulic press instructions, pyrotechnic recipes, a small metal bowl, and other tools and items; and (i) a powder measuring kit. With all these components and ingredients, Belmont had the ability to manufacture around 2,000 IEDs.

Belmont was charged with engaging in the business of manufacturing explosive materials without a license: “It shall be unlawful for any person—(1) to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials without a license issued under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1) (“the explosives statute”). Belmont did not have a license to manufacture explosives. The government found no historical evidence he sold any explosive materials or items. However, at the plea hearing, Belmont admitted traveling to conventions to sell “components for hobbyists, pieces—cardboard tubes, end caps, ball shells, rocket tubes, just anything pyrotechnic-related that wasn't explosive.” Belmont also admitted selling the chemical components at conventions and by mail-order. The presentence investigation report details an explosion at a Kansas City home that caused critical injuries and one death. The occupants of the home were manufacturing IEDs from chemical powders they purchased from Belmont. The presentence report also details a website, “pastimepyrochemicals.com,” run by A Whole New Look Inc., which Belmont operated. The site sold fuels, oxidizers, additives, binders, stabilizers, and color agents associated with explosive-making.

Before pleading guilty, Belmont argued that under the explosives statute, he would be in the business of manufacturing explosives only if it occupied his time, attention, and labor for the purpose of livelihood or profit. Belmont asserted he was manufacturing fireworks as a hobby, not for livelihood or profit. The district court found that at trial, the government would “not have to prove that the defendant intended to sell or seek livelihood or profit from the explosive manufacturing activities.” Belmont then pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the court's interpretation of the explosives statute.

This court reviews de novo the district court's interpretation of the statute. United States v. Williams , 136 F.3d 547, 550 (8th Cir. 1998). This court assumes that “Congress intended to adopt the plain meaning or common understanding of the words used in a statute.” United States v. Petruk , 781 F.3d 438, 441 (8th Cir. 2015).

Belmont urges this court to interpret “engage in the business” as it interpreted the same phrase in the Gun Control Act. See United States v. Perkins , 633 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1981), interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1) (1968). The Gun Control Act prohibited any person “except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms....” § 922(a)(1) (1968). Until 1986, the Gun Control Act did not define the phrase “engage in the business.” Before 1986, this court held that “the proper focus in ascertaining ‘business' is whether the pursuit ‘occupies time, attention and labor for the purpose of livelihood or profit’ by the person and not merely the number of sales.” Perkins , 633 F.2d at 860. Contra, e.g. , United States v. Swinton , 521 F.2d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir. 1975) (holding § 922(a)(1) “does not require that the Government establish that a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms make a profit” and describing the circuit split). In 1986, Congress resolved the circuit split, defining “engage in the business” in the Gun Control Act to require a livelihood or profit motive. See § 921(a)(21)(A) . (“The term ‘engaged in the business' means ... as applied to a

831 F.3d 1101

manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured”).

Belmont contends that the Perkins definition—“for the purpose of livelihood or profit”—should control the explosives statute. However, Congress—in adopting (more than) the Perkins definition—clarified that it amended the Gun Control Act because of Second Amendment concerns. Congress said that the “Firearms Owners' Protection Act” was “additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies” due to “the rights of citizens ... to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution.” Firearms Owners' Protection Act , Pub. L. 99–308, § 1(b)(1)-(2), 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986). The Second Amendment does not protect manufacturing...