does not call upon this Court to decide whether it would revoke the license in it[’]s own judgment, but whether all of the evidence presented is sufficient to justify the Attorney General’s revocation of the license.” Pinion Enters., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 371 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1315 (N.D.Ala.2005). Eighteen U.S.C. § 922(d) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(c) prohibit the sale of “any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is a prohibited person. There is no allegation that Laura Brady is a prohibited person under federal law. As a result, § 922(d) can only be violated if the person who was sold the gun, by straw purchase or otherwise, is a prohibited person. See Abramski v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2269, 189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014) (<HOLDING>). As stated above, the Court finds that Laura
holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that references in  922 refer not to the fictitious but to the real buyer holding that a real estate agent does not owe a buyer a duty independent of the agency relationship with the seller