Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant was sentenced to 46 months after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. He contested the district court’s sentence enhancement, which was based on a prior conviction for 'unlawful sexual intercourse,' claiming it should not be classified as a 'crime of violence' under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Additionally, he argued that the court erred by ruling he did not use the firearm solely for lawful sporting purposes, as outlined in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2). The appellate court affirmed the district court’s reliance on the Presentence Report, noting the statute of conviction was identified and unchallenged. It also upheld the classification of the prior conviction as a crime of violence, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. While affirming these aspects, the appellate court granted a limited remand to consider whether the sentence would change if the guidelines were viewed as advisory, given no clear indication from the sentencing transcript. The decision is partially affirmed and remanded, with citation restrictions per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Crime of Violence Classification under Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court classified 'unlawful sexual intercourse' as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on Ninth Circuit precedent.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit has established that convictions for sexual abuse of a minor, such as 'unlawful sexual intercourse,' are categorically considered crimes of violence for sentencing purposes.
Limited Remand under United States v. Amelinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court issued a limited remand to allow the district court to determine if the sentence would differ under an advisory guideline system.
Reasoning: However, the court granted a limited remand under United States v. Ameline to evaluate whether the sentence would differ if the district court recognized the guidelines as advisory.
Reliance on Presentence Report for Prior Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permitted reliance on the Presentence Report for determining a prior conviction when the statute of conviction was identified and unchallenged by the defendant.
Reasoning: It emphasized that while district courts cannot rely exclusively on the PSR as evidence of a prior conviction, such reliance can be valid if the statute of conviction is identified and unchallenged.