Helguero
United States v. Helguero
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dennis Helguero appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6) for knowingly *649 making a false written statement in an attempt to purchase a firearm. The jury was instructed pursuant to United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir.1976) that the requirement of “knowingly” could be satisfied by deliberate ignorance. The jury convicted Helguero after receiving the instruction. Helguero appeals his conviction on three grounds: (1) the Jewell instruction was improper; (2) the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) form was vague; and (3) that counsel was ineffective. We conclude that the Jewell instruction was given in error but the error was harmless; the form was not vague; and the record is not sufficient to determine ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore affirm.
I. Jewell Instruction
Jewell instructions are appropriate only in narrow circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Fulbright, 105 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d 1319, 1323-24 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Garzón, 688 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.1982). “There must be evidence that the defendant purposely avoided learning all the facts in order…