Cite as U.S. v. Lawrence, 680 F.2d 1126 (6th Cir. 1982)

          United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               v.

    Willie Lawrence; Dana M. Somogye, Defendants-Appellants.

                          No. 81-3457.

         United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

                      Argued May 20, 1982.

                     Decided June 22, 1982.

     Paul L. Geller, Cannon, Burns, Mickel, Geller & Abood, Toledo,
Ohio (court-appointed), for Lawrence.

     Paul D. Frankel, Konop, Skow, Weisburg & Dow, Toledo, Ohio,
for Somogye.

     Frederick H. McDonald, Asst. U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, for
United States.

     Before KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and GUY,* District
Judge.

     PER CURIAM.

     This is a direct appeal of the convictions of Willie Lawrence
and Dana Somogye for making false statements in connection with the
purchase of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(a)(6).
Initially we must dispose of counsel's motion regarding the death
of Willie Lawrence. The government has made no objection to the
motion and we vacate Lawrence's conviction and remand the case to
the District Court for entry of an appropriate order.

     Here, Somogye raises a novel, although specious argument. He
admits that he and Lawrence knowingly purchased guns for an
individual who could not legally buy them in his own name. However,
he argues that because it was they who actually entered the gun
store and paid for the weapons neither individual lied when they
registered themselves as the buyers of the weapons.

     This case was tried to the District Court on the basis of
stipulated facts. Those facts reveal that a Mr. Hajjan, a Canadian
citizen who was ineligible to purchase firearms, legally,
approached the two men and offered to pay them if they would buy
some guns for him. Somogye and Lawrence agreed, and the three went
to a Toledo gun shop where Hajjan selected several guns and
negotiated a price for them. Lawrence began filling out a Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Form Number 4473. On the form, he
identified himself as the "transferee" or "buyer" of the guns. 
Personnel at the store refused to complete the sale. They stated
that since Hajjan and not Lawrence was the buyer it would be an
illegal sale. Both Lawrence and Somogye heard the conversation
regarding the illegality of the sale. The three men left the store
empty-handed.

     They then agreed that Somogye and Lawrence would go to another
gun store alone and acquire handguns for Hajjan for the same
$20-$40 fee per gun previously agreed upon. Hajjan gave Somogye
approximately $1,500 to be used to pay for the weapons.

     Somogye and Lawrence went to a second store where they bought
five guns for approximately $1,360. Both men filled out ATF Form
4473 in their own names stating that they were the transferees or
buyers although neither man had any intention of actually keeping
the weapons. They were subsequently indicted and arrested for
making false statements in connection with the acquisition of
firearms.

     The foundation of Somogye's argument is that he and Lawrence
were not agents of Hajjan but were instead middlemen who purchased
the guns for resale to Hajjan. Hence, as principles, they were in
fact the buyers of the weapons. This argument does not, however,
conform to the facts of the case. Lawrence and Somogye were at all
relevant times acting under the control and direction of Hajjan.
They purchased the guns designated by Hajjan and did so with his
money. The fixed commission they received further evidenced their
role as agents. Therefore Lawrence and Somogye were not buyers and
their statements on the forms were false in violation of 18 U.S.C.
section 922(a)(6).  Moreover the facts as stipulated show that they
acted knowingly. That level of intent suffices under the statute;
specific intent need not be shown, appellant's arguments to the
contrary notwithstanding.  United States v. Cornett, 484 F.2d 1365,
1368 (6th Cir. 1973).

     The result we reach here is necessary if the intentions of
Congress as revealed in the Gun Control Act of 1968 [footnote 1]
are to be followed. If sales such as this one were insulated from
the law's registration provisions, the effect would be tantamount
to a repeal of those provisions. Other courts have upheld
convictions for gun registration violations predicated on sham
transactions and we must do so here. See, e.g., United States v.
Brooks, 611 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1980).

     The judgment of conviction as to Dana Somogye is therefore
affirmed. The judgment as to Willie Lawrence is vacated and
remanded to the District Court.

                            FOOTNOTES

* Honorable Ralph B. Guy, Jr., District Judge, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
designation.

1. 18 U.S.C. section 921 et seq.