United States v. Willard Wilhelm

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Willard Wilhelm

578 F. App'x 634

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 2014

Docket13-30196

StatusUnpublished

This text of 578 F. App'x 634 (United States v. Willard Wilhelm) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Willard Wilhelm, 578 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Willard Bryan Wilhelm appeals his 30-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. *635 § 922(g)(9). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err by declining to apply a sentencing reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2). That section provides for a reduction of a defendant’s offense level to six “[i]f the defendant ... possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2012). To determine whether § 2K2.1(b)(2) applies, sentencing courts consider the “[Relevant surrounding circumstances,” which “include the number and type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s criminal history ..., and the extent to which possession was restricted by local law.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) cmt. n. 6 (2012).

Consistent with § 2K2.1(b)(2) and its accompanying commentary, the district court considered “all the[] circumstances” and correctly determined that Wilhelm did not show that he possessed his rifle solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection because, on the date of his underlying offense, he held “the rifle with the stated intent of harming another person.” Contrary to Wilhelm’s contention, the district court’s sentencing determination was not “based on clearly erroneous facts,” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and Wilhelm failed to establish that he was entitled to a sentencing reduction under § 2K2.1(b)(2) by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Gavilan, 966 F.2d 530, 531-32 (9th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Uzelac, 921 F.2d 204, 205 (9th Cir.1990)).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Willard Bryan Wilhelm appeals his 30-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. *635 § 922(g)(9). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err by declining to apply a sentencing reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2). That section provides for a reduction of a defendant’s offense level to six “[i]f the defendant ... possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2012). To determine whether § 2K2.1(b)(2) applies, sentencing courts consider the “[Relevant surrounding circumstances,” which “include the number and type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s criminal history ..., and the extent to which possession was restricted by local law.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) cmt. n. 6 (2012).

Consistent with § 2K2.1(b)(2) and its accompanying commentary, the district court considered “all the[] circumstances” and correctly determined that Wilhelm did not show that he possessed his rifle solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection because, on the date of his underlying offense, he held “the rifle with the stated intent of harming another person.” Contrary to Wilhelm’s contention, the district court’s sentencing determination was not “based on clearly erroneous facts,” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and Wilhelm failed to establish that he was entitled to a sentencing reduction under § 2K2.1(b)(2) by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Gavilan, 966 F.2d 530, 531-32 (9th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Uzelac, 921 F.2d 204, 205 (9th Cir.1990)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 F. App'x 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-willard-wilhelm-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack