Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03245/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Nevarez-Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3245 

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jesus Nevarez-Sanchez, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2006

Filed: April 10, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Nevarez-Sanchez appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on the grounds there was insufficient

evidence to sustain the conviction. Nevarez-Sanchez also argues the district court1

erred by enhancing his sentence based on his prior convictions and obstruction of

justice without submitting the issues to a jury as required by United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2006 Entry ID: 2030722
-2-

We review a conviction based upon the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Frauendorfer,

428 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2005). Under this strict standard, "[w]e reverse only

if no reasonable jury could have found [the Defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt." Id. If the evidence rationally supports two conflicting hypotheses, the verdict

should not be disturbed. United States v. O'Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1424 (8th Cir.

1988).

We conclude the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, is

sufficient. Nevarez-Sanchez, using a suspended license, was driving a vehicle

borrowed from a friend whose name he could not recall at the time he was pulled over.

The vehicle was reported to state trooper Bruce Okamoto by dispatch as traveling at

thirty to forty miles per hour on the interstate. Okamoto followed the vehicle as it

exited the interstate and looped around a truck stop parking area. As Okamoto

approached the vehicle, Nevarez-Sanchez reclined the driver's seat for at least thirty

seconds and was observed kicking a butane torch out of Okamoto's view. After

obtaining consent for a search, Okamoto found a firearm underneath the driver's seat.

This evidence, combined with the trial testimony of the vehicle's owner that he did not

own a firearm or keep one in the vehicle and the testimony of Nevarez-Sanchez which

conflicted with his prior statements to Okamoto, is sufficient to sustain his conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Nevarez-Sanchez also appeals the sentencing enhancements imposed by the

district court. Review of the district court’s application of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines is de novo, while review of the court’s findings of fact is for

clear error. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Killgo, 397 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir.

2005); United States v. Nichols, 416 F.3d 811, 821 (8th Cir. 2005) (applying standard

of review to an obstruction of justice enhancement). Judicial findings of prior

convictions, whether admitted to by a defendant, do not run afoul of Booker or the

Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Paz, 411 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2005). In

Appellate Case: 05-3245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2006 Entry ID: 2030722
-3-

any event, Nevarez-Sanchez did not object to the prior convictions listed in the presentence report (PSR) and therefore admitted those prior convictions for purposes of

sentencing. Id. Accordingly, the district court committed no error when it considered

Nevarez-Sanchez's prior convictions in determining his sentence. 

Nevarez-Sanchez objected to the PSR insofar as it recommended a sentence

enhancement for obstruction of justice. An obstruction of justice enhancement may

be applied when a defendant gives “false testimony concerning a material matter with

the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion,

mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Ziesman, 409 F.3d 941, 956 (8th Cir.

2005); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. It is undisputed Nevarez-Sanchez testified falsely at trial.

Indeed, his prior statement to officer Peterson that he knew the firearm was in the

vehicle was directly refuted by Nevarez-Sanchez at trial. The district court made the

requisite findings to impose an obstruction of justice enhancement and did not clearly

err in so doing. See United States v. Kessler, 321 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 2003).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3245 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2006 Entry ID: 2030722