United States v. Max Plog-Horowitz

599 F. App'x 742
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 10, 2015·No. 14-10059, 14-10060·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Max Joseph Plog-Horowitz appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his revocation of probation and guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Plog-Horowitz contends that the district court improperly imposed a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm in connection with the felony of impersonating a federal officer. We review for clear error. See United States v. Flores, 729 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir.2013). The pistol that Plog-Horowitz was convicted of possessing was found loaded and holstered along with law enforcement credentials, clothing, and other weapons. In light of this and Plog-Horowitz’s history of impersonating a federal officer, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Plog-Horowitz intended to use or possess the firearm in connection with the offense ,of impersonating a federal officer. See United States v. Jimison, 493 F.3d 1148, 1149 (9th Cir.2007). In any event, the district court also found that Plog-Horo-witz intended to possess or use the gun in connection with the felony offense of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and Plog-Horowitz does not challenge that finding on appeal.

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

United States v. Max Plog-Horowitz, 599 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2015).

599 F. App'x 742 (United States v. Max Plog-Horowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Yoahjan Flores
729 F.3d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Jimison
493 F.3d 1148 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)