Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavan WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-21
Citations: 297 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 07-30416
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavan WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavan WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 21, 2008.
Stephen F. Peifer, Esq., Thomas H. Ed-monds, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kelly R. Beckley, Esq., Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eric Lavan Williams appeals from the 288-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5871. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court erred by finding his possession of a short-barreled rifle constituted a crime of violence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We conclude that the district court did not err. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, cmt. n. 1; see also United States v. Ankeny, 502 F.3d 829, 840-41 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2423, 171 L.Ed.2d 233 (2008).
Williams also contends, for the first time in his reply brief, that the inventory search of his car that resulted in the discovery of the rifle was unconstitutional. We decline to address this contention. See United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 n. 1 (9th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.