Court Opinion

ID: 2793117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-10 21:01:01.217232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:56.228186
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      APR 10 2015
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 14-10059
                                                       14-10060
              Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                  D.C. Nos. 4:12-cr-00661-CW
    v.                                                      4:13-cr-00337-CW

 MAX JOSEPH PLOG-HOROWITZ,                        MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                      Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

                               Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before:        FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

         In these consolidated appeals, Max Joseph Plog-Horowitz appeals from the

district court’s judgments and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed

following his revocation of probation and guilty-plea conviction for being a felon

in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
         **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Plog-Horowitz contends that the district court improperly imposed a four-

level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). He argues that

there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm in connection with the

felony of impersonating a federal officer. We review for clear error. See United

States v. Flores, 729 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 2013). The pistol that Plog-Horowitz

was convicted of possessing was found loaded and holstered along with law

enforcement credentials, clothing, and other weapons. In light of this and Plog-

Horowitz’s history of impersonating a federal officer, the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Plog-Horowitz intended to use or possess the firearm in

connection with the offense of impersonating a federal officer. See United States

v. Jimison, 493 F.3d 1148, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, the district court

also found that Plog-Horowitz intended to possess or use the gun in connection

with the felony offense of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and Plog-

Horowitz does not challenge that finding on appeal.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                          14-10059 & 14-10060