Court Opinion

ID: 9893357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 18:00:47.155726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:30.827803
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 26 2023
                                                                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      No.    23-30008

                Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 1:22-cr-00003-SPW-1

  v.
                                               MEMORANDUM*
JAMES EDWARD DEMPSTER,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for District of Montana
                   Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted October 16, 2023 **
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: KOH and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, *** District Judge.

       *    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **   The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       ***   The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
      James Edward Dempster (“Defendant”) appeals the district court’s decision

not to apply a downward departure to his sentence for a conviction under

§ 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      On January 20, 2022, a grand jury indicted Defendant for violating

§ 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals previously convicted of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from possessing

firearms.1 Defendant pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement and did

not sign an appeal waiver. At his sentencing hearing on January 11, 2023,

Defendant agreed that his base offense level was 20 and that the resulting guideline

range was 46 to 58 months imprisonment, but argued that his conduct mirrored a

scenario envisioned by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2.1(b)(2)

where a “person [who] possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful

sporting purposes” receives an offense level reduced to 6. Although Defendant

acknowledged that he was ineligible for the “sporting exception” based on his

previous drug offense, 2 Defendant contended that the fact that his conduct mirrors

1 Defendant was first charged with possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine on August 27, 2014. His § 922(g)(1) violation occurred on
November 23, 2021, when he was pulled over for traffic violations on his way
home from a hunting trip and officers discovered three firearms in his vehicle.
2 U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduces a defendant’s offense level down to six if the

court finds that the defendant possessed ammunition and firearms “solely for
lawful sporting purposes or collection.” However, the provision is clear that this
reduction is inapplicable to defendants subject to “subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),

                                          2
that contemplated in the sporting exception demonstrates his diminished

culpability and entitles him to a downward departure.

      In response to Defendant’s argument, the district court remarked that

Defendant was “well aware of the fact that [he] can’t possess firearms,” as he has

been on supervised release since 2016 and “it’s pretty clear that the – not only the

Sentencing Commission but Congress have concluded that people who have

criminal histories such as yours are not – don’t get breaks when it comes to defying

the conditions of your supervised release or the federal law in possessing

firearms.” The district court found no excuse for Defendant’s actions, noting that

it “looks to the Court . . . that you do what you want to do . . . and you’re not

willing to comply with the conditions of supervision, not to mention state and

federal law.” Finally, the district court discussed Defendant’s criminal history

dating back to 2003 and raised a concern that “I don’t know exactly what it is

that’s going to get your attention for you to understand that you have to respect the

law and that those laws do apply to you.” For these reasons, the district court

concluded that a sentence of 46 months imprisonment, the bottom of his guideline

range, was appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

(a)(4), or (a)(5).” Defendant concedes that his prior conviction triggered the
application of (a)(4)(A), making him ineligible for the exemption.

                                         3
      Defendant appeals his 46-month sentence, arguing that the district court

abused its discretion in failing to apply a downward departure. When a judge

decides to impose a sentence within the guideline range, she need not give a

“lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The

district court adequately considered Defendant’s legal argument as well as the

particular circumstances of his hunting trip and criminal history. The sporting

exception in §2K2.1(b)(1) expressly excludes individuals with criminal histories

such as Defendant’s, and the district court’s well-reasoned decision took into

account each factor relevant to imposing a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than

necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         4