United States v. Fritz Anderson

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Fritz Anderson

359 F. App'x 855

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2009

Docket08-30469, 08-30470

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 F. App'x 855 (United States v. Fritz Anderson) 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. Fritz Anderson, 359 F. App'x 855 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Fritz Anderson was charged with 29 counts of drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and one count of using, carrying or possessing a firearm in relation to drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Anderson moved for acquittal on the final count; the district court granted the motion as to using or carrying a firearm but denied the motion as to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime and let the count stand. The jury convicted Anderson on all thirty counts, and the court imposed a sentence of 40 years (480 months). Anderson timely appealed.

*856 “[W]e review the district court’s denial of a motion to acquit de novo.” United States v. Mosley, 465 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir.2006). “[A] defendant who accepts firearms in exchange for drugs possesses the firearms ‘in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.” United States v. Mahan, 586 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.2009). Because Anderson accepted firearms as partial payment for outstanding drug debts, he possessed those firearms in furtherance of his drug trafficking offenses, and the district court was correct to deny his motion to acquit.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). “For a non-Guidelines sentence, we are to ‘give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.’ ” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Nothing in the record suggests that Judge Cebull abused his discretion when he departed downward significantly, but not as far as Mr. Anderson would have preferred, from the guideline sentence.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fritz Anderson was charged with 29 counts of drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and one count of using, carrying or possessing a firearm in relation to drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Anderson moved for acquittal on the final count; the district court granted the motion as to using or carrying a firearm but denied the motion as to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime and let the count stand. The jury convicted Anderson on all thirty counts, and the court imposed a sentence of 40 years (480 months). Anderson timely appealed.

*856 “[W]e review the district court’s denial of a motion to acquit de novo.” United States v. Mosley, 465 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir.2006). “[A] defendant who accepts firearms in exchange for drugs possesses the firearms ‘in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.” United States v. Mahan, 586 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.2009). Because Anderson accepted firearms as partial payment for outstanding drug debts, he possessed those firearms in furtherance of his drug trafficking offenses, and the district court was correct to deny his motion to acquit.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). “For a non-Guidelines sentence, we are to ‘give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.’ ” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Nothing in the record suggests that Judge Cebull abused his discretion when he departed downward significantly, but not as far as Mr. Anderson would have preferred, from the guideline sentence.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 F. App'x 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fritz-anderson-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack