United States v. Corwin Four Star , 588 F. App'x 567 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30271
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00025-DLC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORWIN DALLAS FOUR STAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Corwin Dallas Four Star appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2242(2)(B). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Four Star contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights
under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), by relying on judicial
factfinding to impose a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(1) for
use of force against the victim. This argument fails because the application of the
enhancement affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory
minimum sentence applicable to Four Star’s conviction. See United States v.
Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir. 2014).
Four Star next contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the
enhancement. We review the court’s application of the Guidelines for abuse of
discretion and its factual findings for clear error. See id. at 905. On this record,
including testimony that the victim’s injuries were consistent with the victim’s
statement that Four State forcibly held her down during the sexual assault, the
district court did not err in determining that Four Star’s offense involved the use of
force. See United States v. Fulton, 987 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he force
requirement is met when the sexual contact resulted from a restraint upon the other
person that was sufficient that the other person could not escape the sexual contact.”)
(internal quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-30271