United States v. Peacock
This text of 328 F. App'x 498 (United States v. Peacock) 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
Mark Warner Peacock appeals from the 84-month sentenced imposed following his jury-trial conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peacock contends that the district court erred by not making the requisite findings [499]*499of fact in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We conclude that the record supports the enhancement. See United States v. Barajas, 360 F.3d 1037, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2004).
Peacock contends that the district court failed to provide an appropriate explanation of its decision not to resentence, pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006). He also contends that the sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court properly understood its authority to impose a non-Guideline sentence. See id.
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
328 F. App'x 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peacock-ca9-2009.