United States v. Clint Registe

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 14, 2026
Docket20-30042
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Clint Registe (United States v. Clint Registe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Clint Registe, (9th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30042

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00140-TMB-MMS-1 v.

CLINT REGISTE, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Clint Registe appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of

firearms 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). The request for oral argument is denied. Registe first contends that the district court erred under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)

by declining to run his federal sentence concurrent to his then prospective state

sentence. However, the court did not abuse its “broad discretion” by determining

that a consecutive, statutory maximum sentence was warranted under the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, including the need to protect the public and Registe’s substantial

criminal history involving violence and firearms. See United States v. Shouse, 755

F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2014).

Registe next contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. This

claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743, 761 (9th Cir. 2025)

(en banc) (rejecting constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1)’s categorical

disarmament of felons), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2026 WL 135692 (U.S. Jan. 20,

2026).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-30042

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Jason Shouse
755 F.3d 1104 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Steven Duarte
137 F.4th 743 (Ninth Circuit, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Clint Registe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clint-registe-ca9-2026.