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 intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. B R ENDEN W ILLIAM VER M ILYEA, De fe nda

n t - Appe l la

nt. No. 14-10495

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00196-DC B -B PV-1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Da vid C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 17, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HAYES, *** Distric t Judge

.



# FIL ED

JUN 28 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble W illia m Q. Ha y e s, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt B re nde n Ve rm ily e a a

ppe a ls from his c o nvic tion by a j u r y f o r o ne

c ount of Posse ssion o f Fire a rm by a P r o h i bi t ed Pe rson a nd o ne c ount of Posse ssion of Am m uni t i on by a Prohibite d Pe rson in viola tion of 18 U.S.C

. § 922(g)(1). W e ha ve jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm

. Ve rm ily e a c onte n d s t

h a t t he distric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tion re g a rding prohibite d
posse s sion of a fire a rm viola t e d due proc e ss by re lie ving t he g ov er n m ent of the obliga tion to prove a ll e le m e nts of t he offe nse whe re the instruc tion sta t e d tha t (1) “ a ge ne ra l c ourt m a rtia l c onvic tion is a c rim e tha t sa t isfie s se c tion 922(g)(1) if the c rim e for whic h a

de fe nda nt is c ourt-m a rtia le d

wa s punisha

ble b y im prisonm e nt for a

te rm

e xc e e ding one y e a r” a nd (2) “ im prisonm e nt inc lude s a te rm of c on f i n em en t in a

m ilita ry institution.” W e c onc l ude tha t u nde r Unite d State s v
. Mac Donald , 992 F.2d 967 (9th C ir. 1993), the issue o f whe the r a c ourt-m a rtial convic tion i s a c rim e unde r § 922(g)(1) is a m a tte r of la w. The jury instruc tions we re a n a c c ura te sta te m e nt of the la w unde r Mac

Donald , se e 9 9 2 F.3d a t 970, a nd did not re lie ve the gove rnm e nt of the obliga tion to p r o v e t

ha t V e rm ily e a wa s c onvic t e d of a c rim e punisha ble by im prisonm e nt for a

te rm e xc e e ding one y e a

r. Ve rm ily e a a lso c onte nds tha t § 9 22(g)(1) is unc onstitutiona lly va g ue by fa iling
to provide re a sona

ble notic e to Ve rm ily ea, a nd othe rs s im ila rly situa te d, tha t his

m ilita ry c onvic tion m a de him a prohibite d posse ssor. W e c onc lude t h at § 922(g)(1)

2is not u nc onstitutiona l ly va gue be c a

use ordina

ry pe ople c a n unde rsta

n d tha t a n offe nse in v iola tion of the Uniform C ode of M ilita ry Justic e m a y q

ua lify a s a “ c rim e ” a nd tha t

m ilita ry c onfine m e nt m a y q

u a lify a s “ im

prisonm e nt” for purpose s of § 922(g)(1). Se e K ole nde r v . Law

son , 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). AFFIRM E D

.

3