T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J E R MAI NE MAR C E L L OU S E GG L E S T ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50028 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 30 9-R G K -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G a ryK l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 11, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , B Y B E E , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Je rm ai ne E gg l es t on (“ defe nd ant ”) appeal s the 77 -m on th p ri son sent ence i m pos e d bythe di s tr i c tc ourta f t e rhe pl e a de d gui l tyt o be i ng af e l on i n pos s e s s i on of a f i re arm and am m un i t i on i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1) (“ coun ton e” ) 

# FI LED APR14 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e in th e f o rm o f c r a c kc o c a in e in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(B )( i i i ) ( “ coun ttw o”). T hi s c ou rthas j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T h e d ef en d an t ch allen g es h is se n ten ce b as ed o n th e d istrict co u rt’s appl i ca t i on of fi re arm enhancem ent s t o h i s tw o cou nt s pursuantt o the U ni t ed S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l ( U .S .S .G .) § § 2 K 2 .1 ( b ) ( 6 ) a n d 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . W e “ r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s de novo, [ i t s ] appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s t o the f a c t s of [ a ] c a s e f

or abuse of di sc re t i on , and [i t s] fa ctual fi nd i ng s f or cl ear e rr or. ” U

ni ted Stat es v. Stat en , 466 F . 3d 708, 713 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he de f

e nda nta l s o a s s e rt s tha the s houl d notha ve be e n a s s e s s e d a cr i m i nal hi st ory poi ntun der U . S . S . G . §§ 4A 1. 1(c) and 4 A 1. 2(c) (1) f or an u n lic e n s e d d r iv in g c o n v ic tio n . B e c au s e th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t c h a lle n g e h is c r im in a l h is to ryc a lc u la tio n s in d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v ie w th is c la im f o rp la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . G u z m a n -M

a ta , 5 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 6 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n app l yi ng the fi re arm enhancem entun der U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) to d e f e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n f

o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne . S e c t i on 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) author i z e s atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt t o ad e f e n d a n t ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l “ [ i ] f

ad a n g e r o u s w e ap o n ( i n c l u d i n g af i r e a rm)3

w as po ss es se d. ” I n thi s c as e, the defendantadm i tt ed un der oath thathe po ss es se d the fi re arm on the sa m e dayand atthe sa m e hou se i n w hi ch he po ss es se d cra ck c o c a in e . T he r e f

or e , the de f

e nda nt ’ s c onduc te a s i l ys a t i s f i e s the br oa d de f

i ni t i on of “p o s s e s s io n ” in o u rC ir c u it. Se e, e . g. , U n ite d S ta te s v . P itts , 6 F . 3d 1366, 1372 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; U

n i ted S ta tes v. S tew a rt , 9 2 6 F. 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) . To a voi d e nha nc e m e ntunde rS e c t i on 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , the “ bur de n [ w a s ] on the de f e nda nt t o pr ove tha ti tw a s ‘ c l e a r l yi m pr obabl e ’ tha the pos s e s s e d af i r e a rm i n c onne c t i on w i th the offens e. ” U

ni te d State s v . Fe rr

y m an , 444 F . 3d 1183, 1186 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1 c m t . 3) . T he de f e nda ntdi d notm e e tthi s bur de n, a nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyap p lie d S e c tio n 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . Se e P itts , 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 3 . B e c aus e S e c t i on 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) w a s c orr e c t l yappl i e d, w e ne e d notr e a c h the que s t i on of

w he the rde f

e nda nt ’ s a dj us t e d of

f e ns e l e ve l f

orc ountone s houl d ha ve i nc l ude d the f

i r e a rm e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) . I n thi s c a s e , the defe nd ant ’ s t ot al offe nse l evel w as t o b e bas ed on the hi gh erof the adj ust ed o f f e n s e le v e ls f

o rh is tw o g r o u p e d c o u n ts o f c o n v ic tio n . U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .3 ( a ) . E ve n i f the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n i t s appl i c a t i on of S e c t i on 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) , a s the g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s it d id , th e e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . See U n i ted S ta tes v. Cru zG r a m a jo , 5 7 0 F .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. A l len , 153 F . 3d 1037, 1046 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . A bs e ntthe4

Se c t i o n 2 K 2 . 1 ( b ) ( 6 ) e n h a n c e me n t , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtw o u l d h a v e a rr i v e d a tth e s a me s e n te n c e . C

f . U ni te d State s v . Munoz - Cam ar e na , 63 1 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 30 -31 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr by a ss i gn i ng defe nd anton e c ri m i nal hi st ory poi ntun der U . S . S . G . §§ 4A 1. 1(c) and 4 A 1. 2(c) (1) f or an un l i ce nsed dr i vi ng c onvi c t i on. S e c t i on 4A 1. 2( c ) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi de s tha tam i s de m e a nor conv i ct i on for “ [d] ri vi ng w i tho uta l i ce nse or w i th a re vo ked o r s uspend ed l i ce nse” shou l d b e c ou nt ed i f “ the se nt ence w as a t erm of prob at i on of m ore than o ne ye ar . ” In thi s c as e, defe nd antw as conv i ct ed of vi ol at i ng C al i forni a V ehi cl e C od e § 14 60 1. 1(a) for dri vi ng w i th a suspended o r r evok ed l i ce nse, a m i sdem eano r und er C al i forni a l aw , C al . V eh. C od e § 40 00 0. 11 (l ), and the se nt enci ng courtpl ac ed d e f e n d a n t o n s u m m a ryp r o b a tio n f o rtw o y e a r s . T h is c o u rt h a s m a d e it c le a rth a t a de f e nda nton s um m a ryoruns upe rvi s e d pr oba t i on i n C a l i f orni ai s s t i l l on “p r o b a tio n ” f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See U ni ted Stat es v. McCrudden , 8 9 4 F .2 d 3 3 8 , 3 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly a s s ig n e d o n e c r im in a l h is to ryp o in t to d e f e n d a n t’s u n lic e n s e d d r iv in g c o n v ic tio n . AF F I RME D.