Narrative Opinion Summary
An appellant was convicted by a jury for being an alien in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) and for possessing an unregistered silencer pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He challenged both his conviction and sentence on the grounds of improper jury instructions and sentencing errors. The court upheld the conviction, ruling that the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury on entrapment, as the defendant failed to show government inducement or lack of predisposition. Additionally, the admission of testimony regarding Korean translations was appropriate due to the witness's language proficiency, and the exclusion of expert testimony on the adoption of certain terms was justified. The court also supported the district court's decision not to require a jury instruction on voluntary possession of the silencer. For sentencing, the court found no due process violation in applying a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1), as the sentence was within statutory limits. Ultimately, the court affirmed both the conviction and sentence, noting the disposition's unsuitability for publication or citation except as permitted by Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Testimony on Language Translationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Park's testimony about the Korean translation for 'silencer' was admitted due to his proficiency in the language, and the court found no abuse of discretion in this decision.
Reasoning: Regarding testimony by Park about Korean translations for 'silencer,' the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting Park's testimony due to his native language proficiency.
Entrapment Defense Evaluationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined Yoo's entrapment defense and found insufficient evidence to warrant jury instruction on entrapment, as Yoo failed to demonstrate government inducement or lack of predisposition.
Reasoning: The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment, as Yoo did not provide sufficient evidence of government inducement or lack of predisposition to possess the firearm and silencer.
Jury Instruction on Voluntary Possessionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The refusal to instruct the jury that possession of the silencer had to be voluntary was upheld, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction.
Reasoning: The court also upheld the district court's decision not to instruct the jury that possession of the silencer had to be voluntary, aligning with the Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction.
Sentencing Guidelines and Due Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) to enhance Yoo's sentence was deemed appropriate, with no violation of due process rights, as the sentence fell within statutory limits based on his conduct.
Reasoning: As for sentencing, Yoo's due process rights were not violated by applying the cross-reference provision under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1), which increased his offense level by four.