United States v. Larry Tarrer, II
This text of 363 F. App'x 479 (United States v. Larry Tarrer, II) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Larry E. Tarrer, II, appeals his sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, imposed following his guilty plea to four counts of drug-related charges. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
At sentencing, the district court determined, after an evidentiary hearing, that the two-level upward adjustment under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2Dl.l(b)(l) for possession of a firearm was applicable and that Tarrer was ineligible for safety valve relief under USSG § 5C1.2 because Tarrer possessed a firearm in connection with the offense.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Tarrer possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense, for the purposes of § 2Dl.l(b)(l). See United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1998). Tarrer’s friend testified that she found the weapon at issue in a drawer she allowed Tarrer to use for his personal belongings. Once possession was shown, the burden shifted to Tarrer, who failed to demonstrate “that it [wa]s ‘clearly improbable’ ” that his possession of the weapon was “in connection with the offense.” See United States v. Nelson, 222 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1989)).
We also conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding Tarrer ineligible for safety-valve relief under § 5C1.2. See United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). Tarrer failed to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he did *481 not possess the weapon in connection with the offense. See id. at 1186.
The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
363 F. App'x 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-larry-tarrer-ii-ca9-2010.