S.Ct. 2705). Frison complains that the statutes at issue failed to give him fair notice that his conduct was criminal. Cook, 782 F.3d at 988. Specifically, he claims he did not have notice that a passive landlord who is merely renting his property could be held responsible for the actions of his tenants— tenants who were, in this case, illegally selling counterfeit goods and improperly reproducing or distributing copyrighted works. But Frison was not simply a passive landlord. Instead, as the Moreover, the evidence shows Frison received actual notice that his conduct as the operator of the flea market was unlawful, a factor that is relevant to our analysis. See United States v. Ghane, 673 F.3d 771, 778 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Several events put Fri-son on notice that he
holding that an argument of actual notice has some appeal and weakens a constitutional vagueness challenge citing united states v saffo 227 f3d 1260 1270 10th cir 2000 holding that constructive possession may be established by a showing that the firearm was seized at the defendants residence emphasis added quoting united states v walls 225 f3d 858 867 7th cir 2000 holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies citing united states v petty 82 f3d 809 810 8th cir1996 and united states v ono 72 f3d 101 10203 9th cir1995 holding that parties asserting error on appeal must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states