United States v. David Conerly ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10454
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00578-JSW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID CONERLY, AKA David Clayton
Conerly,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
David Conerly appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon
in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Conerly contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm in
connection with another felony offense. We review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and the
court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
The district court’s finding that Conerly possessed cocaine base with the
intent to sell was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that
may be drawn from the facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d
1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The totality of the evidence in the record
supports the district court’s finding that Conerly’s possession of the firearm
potentially emboldened his efforts to sell crack cocaine, see United States v.
Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 567 (9th Cir. 1996), and the court did not abuse its
discretion by applying the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, see Gasca-Ruiz,
852 F.3d at 1170.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-10454