Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appeal, the appellant contested his sentence for felon possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2), arguing that the district court erred by failing to apply U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 5G1.3(b) to reduce his sentence. He claimed that his prior Nevada state conviction for residential burglary, during which he stole the firearms, should have been considered relevant conduct warranting a sentence reduction for approximately twenty-six months already served. The court reviewed the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, focusing on whether the burglary qualified as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3. It found that the burglary occurred one to two days prior to the firearm possession offense, thus not during its commission. Consequently, the court upheld the district court's determination that the burglary and firearm possession were separate offenses, affirming the decision not to apply § 5G1.3(b) for a sentence reduction. The ruling was affirmed without publication and does not serve as precedent, except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 5G1.3(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the defendant's prior state conviction for burglary should reduce his federal sentence for firearm possession, concluding it did not qualify as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Reasoning: Guideline § 5G1.3(b) allows for a reduction in sentence based on time served for an offense that is considered relevant conduct to the firearm possession offense, as defined under § 1B1.3.
Definition of Relevant Conduct under Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the acts constituting the burglary did not occur during the firearm possession offense, thus did not qualify as relevant conduct.
Reasoning: For the burglary to qualify as relevant conduct, its acts must have occurred during the commission of the firearm possession offense.
Review Standard for Sentencing Guidelines Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, affirming the lower court's findings.
Reasoning: The court reviews the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo.