N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DEVON C ARL JOR

DAN-M C FEELY, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10456

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-00011-HDM -VPC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2017 Subm i ssion De fe rre d De c e m be r 8, 2017 R e subm itte d June 25, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LUC ER O, ** R

AW LINSON, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De von C a rl Jorda n-M c Fe e ly

(Jorda n-M c Fe e ly ) a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd
se nte nc e a fte r ple a ding guilty to be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of se ve ra l fire arm s.



# FIL ED JUL 6 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Jorda

n -M c Fe e l y c ha lle nge s his c onvic tion on the ba se s tha t the indic tm e nt did not
a lle ge tha t he posse s se d fire a

rm s while knowing tha

t he wa s a c onvic te d fe lon a

nd that the distric t c ourt did not advise him during thec ha

nge of ple a

proc e e dings tha

t the g ove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to provetha t he ha d knowle d ge of his fe lon sta tus whe n he posse sse d the fire arm s, a s re quire d by Re haif v . Unite d State s , 139 S. C t. 2191 (2019). Jorda

n-M c Fe e l y

furthe r a sse rts tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in
a pply ing se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nts pre m ise d on his prior sta te c onvic t ions for posse s sion of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e and robbe ry , a

nd tha t the se nte nc e im

pose d
wa s substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. 1. The indic tm e nt’ s om ission of the me ns re a tha t Jorda n-M c Fe e ly posse s se d the fire arm s with knowle dge tha t he wa s a c onvic te d fe lon did not de prive the distric t c ourt of jurisdic tion to a djudic at e his c a se . Se eRe h aif , 139 S. C t. at 2196 (c la

rify ing tha

t the te rm “ knowingly ” a s utiliz e d in 18 U.S.C . § 924(a )(2) doe s not “ m odif[y ] the sta tute ’ s jurisdic tiona l e le m e nt” ); se ealso United State s v . Arnt , 474 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th C ir. 2007) (a rtic ulating tha

t “ de fe c t s in a

n indic tm e nt do not de

prive a c o urt of its powe r to a djudic ate a c a s e ” ) (c ita

tion
om i tte d). 2. Although the distric t c ourt did not advise Jorda n-M c Fe e ly

tha t the gove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to provetha t he ha d knowle dge of his fe lon sta tus whe n
2he posse s se d the fire arm s , Jorda n-M c Fe e l y

fa ile d to sa tisfy his “b urde n of showing that , if the Distric t C ourt ha d c orre c t ly a dvise d him

of the me ns re a e le m e nt of the offe nse , the re [wa s ] a

re a sona ble proba bility that he would not ha v e ple d guilty .” Gre e r v . Unite d

State s , Nos. 19-8709, 20-444, – S. Ct. –, 2021 WL 2405146, a t *4 (June 14, 2021) (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

t ions omitte d). Jorda

n-M c Fe e l y doe s not c onte nd tha

t he a c tua lly la c ke d knowle dge of his fe l on sta tus whe n he posse s se d the fire arm s. R athe r, he a dm i tte d tha t he wa s a fe lon a nd tha t he wa s

“ not pe rm itte d to posse ss or ha v e c ontrol of a

fire arm .” Se e id. (e xpla ining tha t “ if
a de fe nda nt wa s in fa c t

a fe lon, it will be

diffic ult for him

to c a rry the burde n on pla i n-e rror re v ie w of showing a ‘ re a sona ble proba bility ’ that, but for the Re haif
e rror, the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings would ha ve be e n diffe re nt” ). 3. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Jorda n -M c Fe e ly ’ s prior
c onvic tion for posse ssion of e c sta sy in viola tion of Ne va da

R e vise d Statute (NR S) § 453.337 wa s a drug tra ffic king offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v . Figue roa-Be ltran , 995 F.3d 724, 733-34 (9th C ir. 2021) (holding tha t , unde r NR S § 453.337,

“ posse ssion of a spe c ific c ontrolle d substa n c e is a n e l e m e nt of the c rim e , ” and
re vie wing re c ord of c onvic tion to de te rm ine ty pe of substa

nc e posse sse d by

the de fe nda nt). B e c a use e c sta sy is de signa

te d “ a s a Sc he dule I c ontrolle d substa nc e unde r the [C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t] ,” Unite d State

s v . Forre ste r , 616 F.3d 929,
3935 (9th C i r. 2010), thedistric t c ourt prope rly inc l ude d Jorda

n-M c Fe e ly ’ s
c onvic tion in c a lc u lating Jorda n-M c Fe e ly ’ s se nte nc e . Se e Figue roa-Be l tran , 995 F.3d at 733-34. 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in de te rm ining tha t Jorda n-M c Fe e ly ’ s robbe ry c onvic tion in viola

tion of NR S § 200.380 wa s a c rim e of viole nc e unde r the 2 015 Se nte nc ing Guide l ine s. 1 Se e Unite d State s v . Harris , 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ) (holding tha t “ Ne va d a c onvic tions for robbe ry

. . . c ate goric a lly

qua lify a s c rim e s of viole nc e ” be c a use “ any c onduc t unde r [NR S] § 200.380 tha

t did not sa

t i sfy the ge ne ric de finition of robbery , suc h a s thre ats to prope rty , would sa

t isfy the g e ne ric de finition of e xtortion” ); se ealso Unite d State s
v . Edling , 895 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th C ir. 2018), as ame nde d (distinguishing be twe e n the 2015 a

n d 2016 Se nte nc ing Guide line s). Although Jorda

n-M c Fe e ly

c onte nds tha

t re se nte nc ing is wa

rrante d unde r the 2016 Se nte nc ing Guide line s due to the am e nde d de finition of e xtortion, hewa ive d
any re lia nc e on the 2016 Guide line s by a sse rting in the

distric t c ourt his “right to be se nte nc e d unde r the pre -August 1, 2016 guide line
. ” Se eUnite d State s v . K aplan , 836 F.3d 1199, 1216 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining tha t “ [a ] pa rty . . . wa ive s
a right whe n it is intentiona l ly re linquishe d or a ba ndone d ” ) (c i tation omitte d).

1 The 2015 Se nte nc ing Guide line s we re utiliz e d at se nte nc ing. 4Eve n unde r pla in e rror re v ie w, the distric t c ourt wa s not c om pe lle d to re t roa c tive ly
a pply the 2016 a

m e ndm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Bank ston , 901 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th C ir. 2018) (re c ogniz ing thec ontinue d va lidity of the pre -2016 de finition of
e xtortion a s it re late s to robbe ry ). 5. Jorda

n-M c Fe e l y fa ils to de m onstra te tha t the distric t

c ourt’ s withinGuide line s se nte nc e wa s substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Martine z -Lope z , 864 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th C i r. 2017) (a ffording “ signific a nt de fe re nc e to a

distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553” ). The se nte nc ing transc ript re fle c ts tha

t the distric t c ourt c onside re d Jorda n-M c Fe e ly ’ s re que st for le nie nc y , a

nd ta i lore d the se nte n c e a fte r c o nside ring the fa c t ors se t forth in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a). Appe lle e ’ s m otion, Dkt. No. 55, is gra nte d. AFFIRM E D.

5