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. JOSEPH KUZM IN,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-30097

D.C . No. 3:17-c r-00034-TM B -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 Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 5, 2019 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : TALLM AN, IKUTA, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt Joseph Kuz m in a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e of two fire arm s re c ove re d from his re s ide nc e . He a lso a

p pe a ls 

# F IL ED
AUG 8 2019 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 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).from

the 72-m onth se nte n c e im pose d by the distric t c ourt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing the m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e obta ine d by

the B ure a

u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s a nd Explosive s (ATF), ba se d on a

se arc h wa

rrant a ffidavit tha

t inc lude d de ta ils from

a pre vious, ille ga l
se arc h by sta te troope rs. The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l finding tha t Kuz m in’ s son, J.K., inform e d offic ia ls a

bout fire arm s at the re side n c e be fore the sta te troope rs’ ille g a l se a rc h wa s not c le arly

e rrone ous. The re fore , a fte r e xc ising theta inte d inform at ion from

the sta te troope rs’ unla

wful e ntry , the ATF wa

rrant wa s ba se d on fa c t s tha t de m onstra

te a fa ir proba

bility tha t a se arc h of Kuz m in’ s hom e would produc e e vide n c e of the c rim e of be ing a fe lon in posse ssion. Se e Illinois v . Gate s , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); Unite d State s v . N ora , 765 F.3d 1049, 1058 (9th C ir. 2014). Kuzm i n’ s pa st c onvic t ions a re re le va nt to show tha

t Kuz m i n is a fe lon, a
ne c e ssa ry e le m e nt of the c rim e , se e 18 U.S.C . § 922(g), not to show he ha d fire arm s in thehouse . B e c a u se the se arc h warrant a ffidavit e sta blishe d tha

t Kuz m in ha d c onstruc tive posse ssion of thefire arm s due to his “k nowle dge of the
we a pons a nd the powe r a

nd inte nt to e xe rc ise c ontrol ove r the m , ” Unite d State s v . Vasque z , 654 F.3d 880, 885 (9th C ir. 2011), theATF did not ne e d dire c t e vide nc e that Kuz m i n ha d be e n

se e n holding the

fire arm s.
2The distric t c ourt’ s a bove -Guide line s se nte nc e wa s not substa nt ive ly
unre a s ona

ble , be c a use the c o urt re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t Kuz m in’ s c rim ina l history sc ore did not re fle c t

the se riousne ss of his re c ord, his pa st c onvic tions showe d tha

t he ha d a viole nt te m

pe r and a substa nc e a buse proble m , he ha d be e n unde te rre d by

pa st se nte nc e s, a

nd he re fuse d to a c c e pt re sponsibility
. The distric t
c ourt did not im

pe rm issibly

ba se its se nte n c e upon Kuzm in’ s sta te m e nts a t
se nte nc ing; ra

the r, it note d in pa ssing tha t his sta te m e nts furthe r supporte d the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c e rn tha t he fa ile d to a c c e pt re sponsibility , whic h is a n
a ppropria te ground for im

posing a ha rshe r se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . C arte r , 804 F.2d 508, 514–15 (9th C i r. 1986). AFFIRM E D.

3