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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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. R A N D Y A L L E N D E N H E M, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30439 D . C . N o. 6: 93 -c r- 60 06 8-H O -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

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. R A N D Y A L L E N D E N H E M, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30440 D . C . N o. 6: 09 -c r- 60 03 2-H O -1

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l R . H oga n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r4, 2010

P ort l a nd, O r e gon 

# FI LED OC T 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B efo re: T A S H IM A , P A E Z an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d appe a l s , R a ndy D e nhe m appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 39 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf orhi s c onvi c t i ons of

F e l on i n P os s e s s i on of

aF i r e a rm , 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) , a n d P o s s e s s io n o f aS to le n F ir e a rm , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( j) ; a n d h is se nt ence of 21 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entfor vi ol at i ng the cond i t i on s of hi s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1. F ir s t, D e n h e m a r g u e s in 0 9 - 3 0 4 4 0 th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r ly e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) on the ba s i s of a n e rr one ous f in d in g th a t D e n h e m h a d p artic ip a te d in ab u r g la ryw h e r e h e s to le ah a n d g u n . D e nhe m c ont e nds tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d bythe gove rnm e nt , c ons i s t i ng pri nci pal l y of the t es t i m on y of D enhem ’ s e x-gi rl fr i end and al l eged acc om pl i ce , S ha nnon H ow e l l , w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove tha tD e nhe m ha d c om m i tt e d the of f e ns e . W e c onc l ude tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nta nd hol d tha tthe § 2 K 2. 1(b)(6) enhancemen tw as prop er . A l tho ug h H ow el l had t es t i fi ed i ncon si st ent l y bef ore agrand j ury, the di stri ct courtdi d n otcl earl y e rrw hen i tcr edi t ed her t es t i m on y thatD enhem had b roken i nt o ahous e w i th he r . T he c i r c um s t a nc e s he r e c ontr a s ts ha rpl yw i th U ni ted Stat es v . H uc ki ns , 53 F . 3d 276 ( 9th C i r . 1995) , r e l i e d on by D e nhe m , w he r e the r e w a s no s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o c orr obor a t e a n a c c om pl i c e ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tthe de f e nda nt3

had u se d a gu n w hi l e c om m i tt i ng a bank rob bery . H er e, H ow el l ’ s t es t i m on y w as co rro b o rat ed b y D en h em ’ s ad m i ssi o n th ath e p o ssessed o n e o f th e st o l en g u n s a fe w w ee ks af

t erthe bu rgl ary. H ert es t i m on y w as al so supp ort ed by the bu rgl ary vi c t i m ’ s opi ni on tha t , i n l i ghtof H ow e l l ’ s di m i nut i ve s i z e , s he c oul d notha ve brok en do w n the do or t o h i s hom e by her se l f. In l i gh tof al l the evi dence pres ent ed atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n fi nd i ng that D e n h e m c o m m itte d th e b u r g la ry . W ith th a t f in d in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly ap p lie d th e § 2 K 2 .1 ( b ) ( 6 ) e n h a n c e m e n t. 2. N ext , D enhem ar gu es i n b oth 0 9-30 43 9 and 09 -304 40 thatthe di stri ctcourt c om m i tt e d pr oc e dur a l a nd s ubs t a nt i ve e rr orw he n i tf a i l e d t o c ons i de ra s m i t i ga t i on the fa ctthatD enhem ’ s 199 4 sent ence un der the A rm ed C ar ee r C ri m i nal A ct (A C C A ), 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ), w hi ch w as base d o n sever al pri or se cond degree b u r g la ry c o n v ic tio n s u n d e rO r . R e v . S ta t. § 1 64 . 21 5, w ou l d n othave been prop er un der the pres enti nt erpret at i on of the A C C A . D enhem ar gu es thatre ce ntU ni t ed S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt a n d N in th C ir c u it o p in io n s in B egay v. U ni ted Stat es , 553 U . S . 137 ( 2008) , a nd U ni ted Stat es v. G rise l , 48 8 F . 3d 84 4 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en b a n c ) , e x c l u d e O r e g o n Se c o n d D e g r e e Bu r g l a ryf r o m th e c a t e g o ryo f

A CCA v io le n t f e lo n ie s a n d th e r e f

o r e h is 1 9 9 4 s e n te n c e w a s u n ju s t.W e a ls o n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f D e n h e m ’s F e d . R u le 1 C iv . P ro . 6 0 (b ) m o ti o n . A t o ra l arg u m en t, co u n se l rep re se n ted th at D en h em ’s appe a l di d notc ha l l e nge the m e r i t s of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s R ul e 60( b) rul i ng. 4 W e nee d n otaddres s the qu es t i on of w hether O re go n S ec on d D egre e B ur gl a ry i s avi ol e ntf

e l ony unde rthe A C C A . I n s e nt e nc i ng D e nhe m i n 1994, the 1 courtfol l ow ed then-exi st i ng N i nth C i rc ui tprec edent ; there w as no thi ng i m prop er abou tthatse nt ence . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tprocedural e rr o rin f a ilin g to c o n s id e ra s m itig a tio n th e la te rc h a n g e in th e la w . M oreover, i n l i gh tof al l the ci rc um st ance s, the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence s t ow ar d the l ow end o f D enhem ’ s a dv i sorygu i del i nes r ange i n b oth cas es w er e s ubs t a nt i ve l y r e a s onabl e . I n pa rt i c ul a r , i n 09- 30439, the c ourt ’ s s e nt e nc e of 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntw a s r e a s onabl e w he r e D e nhe m vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se by absc on di ng supervi si on and com m i tt i ng new cr i m i nal o f f e n s e s . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc) ( a f f i rm i ng aw i thi n gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e w he r e the r e w a s nothi ng unus ua l aboutthe defe nd ant ’ s c i rc um st ance s thatcom pel l ed a s ent ence bel ow the advi sorygu i del i nes r a nge ) . S i m i l a r l y , i n 09- 30440, the c ourt ’ s s e nt e nc e of 39 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt w a s r e a s o n ab le w h e r e D e n h e m c o m m itte d af e lo n yg u n o f

f e n s e a f te rf a ilin g to r e p o rt f o rh is p r is o n s e n te n c e in a n u n r e la te d d ru g c a s e . Se e i d.5

D en h em ’ s sen t en ce i n 0 9 -3 0 4 3 9 i s A F F I R M E D , a nd hi s s e nt e nc e i n 09- 30440 i s a l s o AF F I RME D.