Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0941-01.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. John David Johnson WHITE, aka John Dthomas White, John White Johnston, John DT White Johnson Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10368.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2006.
    
    Decided April 14, 2006.
    Michael Allen Lee, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marc J. Victor, Esq., Victor & Hall, PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and KARLTON, District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant challenges his criminal conviction of dealing firearms without a license, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A). Appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. We review an insufficiency of the evidence claim for plain error. United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000).

“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires this court to determine if ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

Section 922(a)(1) of title 18 U.S.C. provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful “for any person, except a ... licensed dealer, to engage in the business of ... dealing in firearms.” Section 921(a)(11) explains that a “dealer” is “any person engaged in the business of selling firearms ... at wholesale or retail.” Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant admitted that he sold somewhere between twenty-three and twenty-five firearms in 2002 and made a profit of approximately $50 per firearm. Appellant further admitted that he was selling guns to make money. Appellant also created a list of all the firearms he remembers selling and the person to whom he sold the firearm. The list contained around fifteen transactions involving eighteen firearms.

Based on the evidence presented, a rational jury could have concluded that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.