USA v. Wilson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-25-398-SLP
)
DOYLE GLEN WILSON, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, made pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Defendant made an oral Motion at trial and the Government both
orally responded at trial and submitted a written response. See Government’s Resp. [Doc.
No. 108].1 Defendant has further submitted a Rule 29 Memorandum [Doc. No. 114].
In this multi-defendant case, Defendant Doyle Glen Wilson (Defendant) was
charged with Count 6, Felon in Possession of Firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
and Count 7, Possession of Unregistered Firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Prior
to trial, on motion of the Government, the Court dismissed Count 6 of the Indictment.
Defendant proceeded to a jury trial as to Count 7 and the jury found him guilty of the
offense.
1 At trial, the Court reserved ruling on the issue. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b).
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 115 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal, challenging the sufficiency of the
Government’s evidence. He argues that the Government’s evidence established that
“compliance with a necessary element of the charge was not possible.” Doc. No. 114 at 1.
The elements necessary to establish a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) are:
1. Defendant knowingly possessed a firearm, i.e., a shotgun having a
barrel of less than 18 inches in length, or a weapon made from a shotgun if
such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel of less than 18 inches in length;
2. Defendant knew of the specific characteristics or features of the
firearm, including that it was a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches
in length or that it was a weapon made from a shotgun and as modified had
an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel of less than 18 inches in
length, that caused it to be registrable under the National Firearms and
Registration and Transfer Record;
3. The firearm was or could readily have been put in operating condition;
and
4. The firearm was not registered to Defendant in the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record. The Government is not required to prove
that Defendant knew that the firearm was not registered or had to be
registered.
See Court’s Jury Instructions [Doc. No. 109], Instruction No. 15; see also 26 U.S.C. §
5861(d).
Defendant contends that the testimony of the Government’s witness, Emma LaVoie,
a specialist with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF),
established that the firearm at issue could not be registered, making compliance with the
statute a legal impossibility. Defendant LaVoie testified that a firearm without a serial
number cannot be registered under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer
Record. And the firearm at issue did not have a serial number. According to Defendant
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 115 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
“[a]bsent any Government evidence concerning the manner and/or method by which the
instant firearm could be registered, the doctrine of legal impossibility prevents Defendant
from being held criminally liable for failing to perform an act that the law – or the
administrative agency governing that law – refuses to allow them to perform.” Doc. No.
114 at 3.
The Government responds that Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by United States
v. McCollom, 12 F.3d 968, 971 (10th Cir. 1993). The Court agrees. In McCollom, the
Tenth Circuit rejected a legal impossibility challenge even though the defendant could not
have registered a sawed off shotgun due to the fact that it lacked a serial number, which
made it illegal. The Tenth Circuit held that because there is no statutory ban on the
possession of a sawed-off shotgun, it’s registration was not a legal impossibility. Id. at
970-71. As the Tenth Circuit reiterated in United States v. Berres, 777 F.3d 1083, 1088
(10th Cir. 2015), where there is “no statutory ban on the registration of the firearm, the
registration is not a legal impossibility.”
Here, as in McCollom, a short-barreled shotgun is a “firearm” that is “not wholly
unregisterable.” Berres, 777 F.3d at 1088. And this is true “[e]ven if the defendant himself
could not have registered the firearms as a transferee.” Id.; cf. United States v. Thomas, 15
F.3d 381, 383-84 (5th Cir. 1994) (rejecting defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction under § 5861(d) because registerability is not an
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 115 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
essential element of § 5861(d) and defendant failed to offer any authority that the
government was required to prove registerability).2
United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992), the sole case Defendant
relies upon, is distinguishable. In Dalton, the firearm at issue – a machinegun – was wholly
unregisterable based on a separate criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Indeed in
McCollom, the Tenth Circuit declined to extend Dalton’s holding to sawed-off shotguns
because “there is no statutory ban on the registration of short-barreled shotguns.”
McCollom, 12 F.3d at 970. Because Defendant offers no other authority in support of his
Motion and fails to persuasively distinguish McCollom or address Berres, the Court finds
Defendant has failed to establish a right to relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2026.
2 As the Government argues, there are procedures that can be followed to serialize a firearm. See
Resp. at 6 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); 27 C.F.R. § 479.84). Again, Defendant fails to show that
there is a statutory ban on registering the short-barreled shotgun at issue here.
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 115 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 4