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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TR ISTAN JAM AL GR

ANT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30106

D.C . No. 3:12-C R -00063-SLG-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 Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 14, 2014 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : FAR

R IS, D.W . NELSON, a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Trista n Ja m a l Gra nt a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa nc e with intent to distribute in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1) and



# FIL E D AUG 18 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(b)(1)(C ), and his re sulting 47-month se nte nc e . W e a ffirm Grant’ s c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . 1. Grant c ha l le nge s the suffic i e nc y of the e vide nc e supporting his c onvic tion for posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e with intent to distribute . Gra nt wa s found with 1.69 gra

m s of c ra c k c oc a ine divide d into 13 individua l dose s, a sc a l e with c oc a ine re sidue , m ultiplec e ll phone s, a

nd ove r $1,000 in c a sh. Prior to his a rre st, la w e nforc e m e nt obse rve d two individua l s e nte r the ba c k se at of Gra nt’ s c ar and le ave in le s s tha

n two m inute s. Although Gra nt e xpla i ne d how m ost of the e vide nc e c o uld be c onsiste nt with Gra nt’ s pe rsona l use of c ra c k, the gove rnm e nt offe re d a c om pe t ing c ha

ra c te riz ation c onsiste nt with distribution of c ra c k. Ta king the e vide n c e in a

light fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, a

rationa l jury

c o uld ha ve a gre e d with thegove rnm e nt a nd found Gra

nt’ s guilt bey ond a re a sona ble doubt. Unite d State s v . N orw o od , 603 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th C ir. 2010). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d a two-le ve l obstruc tion of justic e se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt. U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1. The distric t c ourt found tha

t Gra nt pe rjure d him se l f by

te stify ing tha

t the c ra c k c oc a ine wa s inte nde d only for pe rsona l use , not distribution. The m ate ria lity

and willful inte

nt be hind thefa lse sta

te m e nt, whic h wa s de signe d to ne g ate an e le m e nt of the c ha rge d offe nse , a

re a ppa re nt from the re c ord. Se e Unite d State s v . Anc he ta , 38 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th C i r. 1994).

2B e c a

use we find tha

t the e nha nc e m e nt wa s prope rly

ba se d on Gra

nt’ s tria l te stim ony , we do not re a c h a lte rnate ba se s for the e nha nc e m e nt. Id. at 1119. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d a two le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt for posse s sion of a

fire arm during a drug tra ffic king offe nse . U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr by finding Gra

nt posse sse d

a fire arm by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e be c a use the re wa s a

m ple e vide nc e supporting Grant’ s a ware n e ss of the gun. Nor wa s it a n a buse of disc re c tion to a

pply the e nha nc e m e nt be c a

use , give n

the re c ord, it wa s not “ c le arly im proba ble tha t the we a pon wa s c onne c te d with theoffe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Applic ation Note 11(A). AFFIRM E D.

3