Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0875-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adiya Thomas GRAHAM, a.k.a. Adyia Thomas Graham, “Gat”, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30231
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Leah K. Bolstad, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States District Court, Mark 0. Hatfield United States Courthouse, Portland, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gary Bertoni, Bertoni Law PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable, for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adiya Thomas Graham appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Graham challenges the district court’s imposition of a four-level increase to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We review the district court’s identification and interpretation of the correct sentencing guideline de novo, its findings of fact for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

The district court did not clearly err in finding, based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the government at sentencing, that Graham more likely than not committed the Oregon felony offense of unlawful use of a weapon under Oregon Revised Statutes § 166.220. See United States v. Newhoff, 627 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based on reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Guidelines to the facts of this case and imposing the four-level increase to Graham’s offense level.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.