United States v. Reuben Conway

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: 17-10497
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10497

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00013-GMN-NJK-1 v.

REUBEN CONWAY, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Reuben Conway appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 92-month sentence for being a felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 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). Conway first asserts that the district court erred by treating his prior

conviction for possession of cocaine, in violation of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS)

§ 453.337, as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).

This claim fails because, contrary to Conway’s assertion, § 453.337 is divisible.

See United States v. Figueroa-Beltran, 995 F.3d 724, 733 (9th Cir. 2021). Because

there is no dispute that Conway’s offense involved cocaine, the district court

properly treated it as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). See id. at 733-34.

Conway further argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case

because the indictment did not charge that he knew of his status as a convicted

felon. See Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). However, this

omission did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. See United States v.

Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[D]efects in an indictment do not deprive a

court of its power to adjudicate a case.”); United States v. Arnt, 474 F.3d 1159,

1162 (9th Cir. 2007) (same).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-10497