Opinion ID: 2767023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leaming’s Convictions

Text: Leaming’s contention that his convictions for filing false liens must be overturned because the documents he filed were not actually liens is not supported by the record. Not only were the documents titled “liens,” Leaming repeatedly indicated in phone calls and letters his belief that the documents would enable him to seize property from the named victims. Based on this evidence, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Leaming filed or attempted to file a “lien” or “encumbrance” under 18 U.S.C. § 1521. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We also reject Leaming’s argument that the act of filing a false lien is constitutionally protected speech. We need not address Leaming’s claim that § 1521 does not protect former government officials. One of the victims named in Count III was a current 2 government official, and the jury unanimously agreed that Leaming filed a false lien against him. If there was any error in naming a retired official as a victim, which we do not decide, it was harmless. Sufficient evidence also supports Leaming’s conviction for harboring fugitives in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. Trial testimony and documents recovered from Leaming’s home reflected that Leaming knew his houseguests were fugitives, and that he was actively working to help them “avoid[] detection and apprehension.” United States v. Hill, 279 F.3d 731, 738 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1543 (9th Cir. 1988)). Leaming contends that his conviction for firearms possession violates the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. The requirements of the Commerce Clause were satisfied because undisputed evidence established that the guns found in Leaming’s home moved in interstate commerce. See United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637, 641-642 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2012). We reject Leaming’s Second Amendment claim because convicted felons do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010).