United States v. Love

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-2791
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2791

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02418-MMM-1 v.

DONNY LOVE, Sr., AKA Donny MEMORANDUM* Durham, Sr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 3, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Donny Love, Sr. appeals his 370-month sentence for convictions of multiple

offenses related to his involvement in the May 2008 bombing of the federal

* 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). courthouse in San Diego, California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

To carry its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, see

United States v. Lucas, 101 F.4th 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc), that at least

eight firearms were involved in the offense, the government presented

coconspirator testimony, and non-coconspirator testimony. The district court did

not err in finding that this evidence was sufficient to carry the government’s

burden of proof. Love’s challenge to the reliability of the coconspirators’

testimony introduced by the government fails. Love’s reliance on Lilly v. Virginia,

527 U.S. 116, 131 (1999), and Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204

(1909), is misplaced, because unlike the criminal defendant in Lilly, Love had the

opportunity to cross-examine the coconspirators, and as required by Crawford, the

district court examined the coconspirators’ testimony with caution but ultimately

concluded that their testimony was credible.

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-

level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) of the 2021 Guidelines.

AFFIRMED.