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. KENNETH W

AYNE LEAM ING, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30142

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-05039-R B L-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DAVID C ARR OLL STEPHENSON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30148

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-05039-R B L-2

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington 

# F IL ED JAN 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. Ke nne th Le am i n g a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

nd se nte nc e for filing fa l se lie ns a ga inst gove rnm e nt offic ia ls, ha rboring fugitive s , a

n d be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of a fire a rm . Da vid Ste phe nson a

ppe a ls his se n te nc e for filing fa lse lie ns. W e a ffirm Le am ing’ s c onvic tions, but vac ate his se n te nc e and re m and for re se nte nc ing. W e a ffirm

Ste phe nson’ s se nte nc e . I. L e am ing’s Convic tions Le am ing’ s c onte ntion tha t his c o nvic t ions for filing false lie ns m ust be ove rturne d be c a

use the doc um e nts he file d we re not a c tua lly lie ns is not supporte d by the re c ord. Not only

we re the doc um e nts title d “ lie n s,” Le a

m i ng re pe ate dly indic ate d in phonec a lls a nd le tte rs his be lie f that the doc um e nts would ena b le him to se iz e prope rty

from the nam e d vic tim s . B a se d on this e v ide nc e , a rationa l juror c ould ha v e found be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t Le am ing file d

or atte m pte d to file a “ lie n ” or “ e nc um

branc e ” unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1521. Se e J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). W e a lso re je c t Le am ing’ s argum e nt tha t the a c t of filing a fa lse lie n is c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d spe e c h . W e ne e d not a d dre ss Le am ing’ s c la im tha t § 1521 doe s not prote c t form e r gove rnm e nt offic ia ls. One o f the vic tim s na m e d in C ount III wa s a

c urre nt
2gove rnm e nt offic ia l, a nd the jury

una nim ously a gre e d tha t Le am ing file d a

fa lse lie n a ga inst him . If the re wa s a ny e rror in na

m i ng a re t ire d offic ia l a s a

vic tim , whic h we do not de c ide , it wa s ha rm le ss. Suffic i e nt e vide nc e a l so supports Le am ing’ s c onvic t ion for ha rboring fugitive s in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1071. Trial te stim ony and doc um e nts re c o ve re d from

Le am ing’ s hom e re fle c te d tha t Le a m i ng kne w his house gue sts we re fugitive s, a

nd tha t he wa s a c tive ly

working to he lp the m

“ a v oid[] de te c tion and a ppre he nsion.” Unite d

State s v . Hill , 279 F.3d 731, 738 (9th C ir. 2002) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Yarbrough , 852 F.2d 1522, 1543 (9th C ir. 1988)). Le am ing c o nte nds tha

t his c onvic t ion for fire a

rm s posse ssion viola

te s the C om m e rc e C la

use and the Se c ond Am e ndm e nt. The re quire m e nts of the C om m e rc e C la

use we re satisfie d be c a

u se undispute d e vide nc e e sta blishe d tha

t the guns found in Le am ing’ s hom e m ove d in inte rstate c o m

m e rc e . S e e Unite d State

s v . He nry , 688 F.3d 637, 641-642 & n.5 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re je c t Le am ing’ s Se c ond Am e ndm e nt c la im be c a use c onvic t e d fe lons do not ha ve a c onstitutiona

l right to be ar arm s. Unite d State s v . Vongx ay , 594 F.3d 1111, 1117-18 (9th C ir. 2010). II. L e am ing’s Se nte nc e

3Le am ing a rgue s tha t the distric t c o urt im

p rope rly c a lc ulat e d his Se n te nc ing Guide line s ra

nge whe n it a

p plie d a six-point enha

nc e m e nt for “ c onduc t e v ide nc i ng an inte nt to c arry

out suc h thre at.” U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1). As the gove rnm e nt a c knowle dge s, Le am ing obje c t e d to this enha n c e m e n t be fore his se nte nc ing. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t

c ourt’ s de c ision to a

p ply this e nha nc e m e nt wa s a

“ signific ant proc e dura l e rror.” Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). B oth the pre se nte n c e re port a n d the distric t c ourt a

t se nte nc ing re fe rre d to Guide line s Se c tion 2A6.1(b)(1) a s a n e nha nc e m e nt for c onduc t

e v i de nc ing a

n inte nt to c arry

out “ the offe nse .” Howe v e r, the e nha nc e m e nt only

a p plie s to de fe nda n ts who e nga ge in c onduc t e vide nc ing a

n inte nt to c arry

out “ suc h thre at.” Although Le am ing did c arry out the offe nse of filing a fa lse lie n, nothing in the re c o rd supports the

c onc lusion tha

t Le am ing m a d e a

“ thre at” within the m e aning of Se c tion 2A6.1(b)(1). This e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss. The distric t c ourt re j e c te d the gove rnm e nt’ s re que s t for a

n e xtra ordina

ry se n te nc e and ga

ve Le am ing a

se nte nc e within the Guide line s ra

nge . W e va c ate and re m and for re se nte nc ing without a pplic ation of the s ix-point e nha

nc e m e nt unde r Se c tion 2A6.1(b)(1).

4W e re je c t Le a m ing’ s othe r c la im s of se nte n c i ng e rror. The re c ord is c le ar that Le am ing file d “ m ore tha n two fa lse lie ns,” wa

rran ting a n e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2)(B ). It wa s not im p e rm issibledouble -c ounting for the distric t c o urt to a

pply an e nha nc e m e nt unde r Se c t ion 3A1.2 ba se d on the gove rnm e nt offic ia l sta

tus of thevic tim . Unite d State s v . W i lliams , 14 F.3d 30, 31- 32 (9th C ir. 1994) (pe r c uriam ). III. Ste phe nson’s Se nte nc e Ste phe n son c la im s tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d in c a lc ulat ing his Guide line s range and tha

t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . B e c a use Ste phe nson did not obje c t to theGuide line s c a l c ulation be fore se nte nc ing, we re vie wfor pla in e rror, whic h

is “ (1) e rror, (2) that is pla in, a nd (3) tha t a ffe c ts substa

n tia l rights.” Unite d State s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009) (quota tion m arks and c ita tions omitte d). Any c la im e d e rror in the c a lc ulation of Stephe nson’ s Guide line s ra nge did not a ffe c t his substa

ntia l rights. There is not a “ re a sona ble proba b ility ” tha t the distric t c o urt would im

pose a diffe re nt se nte nc e on re m a nd. Unite d

State s v . J ose ph , 716 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th C ir. 2013). These nte nc ing judge , who ha d pre v iously

se nte nc e d Ste phe nson in 2006, thoroughly e xpla ine d why the Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s did not re fle c t Ste phe nson’ s re le ntle s s e fforts to ha ra ss 5fe de ra l offic ia l s. Ste p he nson ha s m ultiplefe lony

c onvic tions, a

n d he plotte d the c urre nt offe nse from prison. Heshowe d no re m orse for his a c tions a nd c ontinue s to c h a lle nge the le gitim a c y of fe de ra l a

uthority . For the sa m e re a sons, we a lso hold tha t the judge ’ s de c ision to im pose the sta tutory m a xim um se nte n c e wa s not substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . 1 AFFIRM ED in pa

rt, VAC ATED in pa

rt, a n d REM ANDED for re s e nte nc ing a s to Le a m ing. W e AFFIRM Ste phe nson’ s se nte nc e .

1 B e c a use the y are both re pre se nte d by

c ounse l, we de c line to e nte rta in the m ultiple p ro se

C irc uit C ourt filings by

Le am i ng a

n d Ste phe nson. Se e Unite d State s v . Be rgman , 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th C ir. 1987). 6