NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JULIAN TYLER BAUGHMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30127
D.C. No. 1:19

- cr - 00063

- SPW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 7, 2021 * * Seattle, Washington Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI, ** * District Judge. Defendant Julian Tyler Baughman appeals his conviction o f one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

§ 841(a)(1) and one count of possession of a firearm in furth erance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4 (c)(1)(A)(i). 1 Baughman also challenges his sentence of 240 months ’ imprisonment 2 as substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review Baughman’s sufficiency of the evidence claim to determine
whether , “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

any ratio nal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in the original). In so doing, we “may not usurp the role of the finder of fact by considering how it would have resolved the conflicts, made the inferences, or considered the
evidence at trial.” United States v. Nevils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9 th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We “may not ask [ourselves] whether [we] believe[] that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only whether any rational trier of fact could have made that finding. ” Id. (quotation marks, emphases , and citation s omitted).
The evidence presented to the jury supports Baughman’s convictions

.

1 Baughman was also convicted of possession of a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He does not challenge this conviction. 2 Baughman was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment on the possession with intent to distribute charge and 120 months’ imprisonment on the firearm possession as a prohibited person charge to run concurrently, and 60 months imprisonment on the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime charge to run consecutively.3

B aughman arrived at the Montana residence where he was arrested in a white Chevy
Blazer that he had apparently recently purchased, and which contained a digital scale, approximately 1.6 pounds of methamphetamine, 3 ammunition, a loaded CZ Scorpion firearm , and a . 357 style handgun

. The government also introduced
evidence that law enforcement seized a .4 0 caliber Glock handgun from Baughman’s

person
. The jury also heard evidence about text and Facebook messages ret rieved from Baughman’s phone that pertained to drug trafficking, including messages containing pictures of receipts for money orders apparently used to pay Baughman’s drug suppliers, and pictures of sealed packaging containing methamphetamine , including a picture that looked like the packaged methamphetamine found in the Chevy Blazer

. The jury also heard that Baughman’s messages contained common coded language referencing methamphetamine and heroin. The phone evidence also
show ed that Baughman was attempting to collect drug debts

. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found Baughman guilty of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.
The evidence was also sufficien t reg arding the charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking

. Baughman , while in possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine, was found with several weapons, including one

3 The methamphetamine was estimated to have cost between $4,500 and $10,000 and could have been sold for close to double that amount.4

firearm on his person

. A government w itness testified to the commonsense proposition that firearms can provide helpful protection for drug traffickers , and drug trafficking is a “very dangerous business.” Baughman argues that this evidence is insufficient because “the government presented [only] general evidenc e that
individuals

—

not Mr. Baughman in particular

— who traffic in drugs also possess
firearms. ” In the circumstances here, the evidence was more than sufficient to allow a rational juror to conclude that Baughman possessed one or more of the firearms in
fu rtherance of his drug trafficking. We reject Baughman’s appeal of his sentence as substantively unreasonable. “[W]e review the district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion” where a defendant challenges it as substantively unreasonab le. United States v.
Amezcua

- Vasquez , 567 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9 th Cir. 2009). Although our circuit has not adopted a presumption of reasonable ness for a Guidelines

- based sentence, we acknowledge that in individual cases a sentence within the Guidelines range “will usually be reasonable. ” United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 993

– 94 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the sentence of 240 months,

was at the lower end of the applicable Guideline s range of 235 to 293 months

. And
the district court provided a detailed explanation for its sentence , including Baughman’s lengthy criminal history and the fact that these offenses evinced an
escalation in Baughman’s c riminal activity. Because the sentence was “sufficient,5

but not greater than necessary ” to accomplish 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s goals , it was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Crowe , 563 F.3d 969, 977 n.16 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
AFFIRMED.