of firearm is made in the state where it is found; if not, a rational jury could find that it crossed state lines to reach that state. See, e.g., United States v. Snow, 82 F.3d 935, 941 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that the “unrefuted and unchallenged evidence” by a law enforcement agent on direct examination "established there are only two gun manufacturers in Wyoming, neither of which manufacture the type of weapon [the defendant] was charged with stealing and possessing[,]" and that this evidence along with other evidence related to the origin the type of gun was sufficient proof “to establish that at some point the gun had to have crossed state or national lines in order to have been available for sale in Wyoming”); cf. United. States v. Overstreet, 40 F.3d 1090, 1095 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Alas, in the digital context, things are not
holding that defendant who had pled guilty in oklahoma state court pursuant to the oklahoma deferred judgment act had not been convicted in the oklahoma proceedings for purposes of usc  922h prohibiting the receipt of a firearm by one who has been convicted of a felony holding district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony that defendants computer and flash drive were labeled as having been manufactured abroad to prove interstate commerce element holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of a law enforcement agent who had no knowledge or opinion about the firearm identified in the indictment but stated that there are not and have never been any manufacturers of revolvers in oklahoma  and any revolver used during a carjacking in oklahoma necessarily travelled in interstate commerce holding that district court should have applied kansas law regarding attorneys fees despite oklahoma statute which recited in any civil action to recover holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony