USA v. James David Kircus, No. 14-13956 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-13956 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00456-RDP-JHE-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES DAVID KIRCUS, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (July 22, 2015) Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James Kircus appeals his conviction for knowing possession of a destructive device, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Kircus contends the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the Government failed to prove Kircus’s modified airbag cylinder was a “destructive device.” We affirm. A “destructive device” is statutorily defined as “any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb” but not including “any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). This section requires proof that the device was both (1) “an explosive” and (2) “designed as a weapon.” United States v. Hammond, 371 F.3d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 2004). In determining whether a device was designed as a weapon, “the critical inquiry is whether the device, as designed, has any value other than as a weapon.” Id. at 781. On appeal, Kircus does not argue the modified airbag cylinder was not an explosive. Rather, he contends the evidence does not support a finding that the device was designed or redesigned as a weapon. We disagree. The Government’s experts testified the device as modified had no social, industrial, or commercial use and was, in their opinion, designed to be an improvised explosive bomb. The Government’s experts also testified the device would fragment into pieces moving 2 Case: 14-13956 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 3 of 3 at a high enough rate of speed to seriously injure anyone in the vicinity of the blast. This testimony, along with other record evidence, provides a sufficient basis for concluding the device was designed as a weapon. See, e.g., United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1247 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining the Government’s expert testimony “established that [defendant’s] pipe bombs were designed as weapons” when the expert testified the pipe bombs “had no social or entertainment use, they propelled fragments, and the fragments were capable of causing severe injury to people in the vicinity”). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Kircus’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
