United States v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 24-7486
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7486 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:20-cr-00045-DGC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS DEVON LEWIS, AKA Carlos Lewis,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Devon Lewis appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 235-month sentence imposed on remand for resentencing. 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). Lewis contends the district court erred in imposing a 6-level enhancement to

his offense level under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(B). He argues that he should have

instead received a 5-level enhancement because the evidence showed only that he

“brandished” a firearm. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.3(b)(2)(C).

As the government argues, Lewis forfeited this claim by failing to raise it in

his first appeal, which resulted in a remand on two unrelated issues. See United

States v. Wright, 716 F.2d 549, 550 (9th Cir. 1983). Even if not forfeited by the

failure to raise the issue in the first appeal, Lewis did not raise this issue at his

resentencing, and the district court did not plainly err by imposing the 6-level

enhancement. See United States v. Albritton, 622 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (9th Cir.

2010) (affirming application of the 6-level enhancement where the record showed

the defendant pointed the gun at bank employees); United States v. Charles, 581

F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpreserved claim regarding the guidelines

calculation is reviewed for plain error).

Lewis’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief is granted. Lewis

challenges his conviction on several grounds, but we previously affirmed Lewis’s

conviction, and his claims are without merit. Any other pending motions are

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7486