United States v. Amado Maldonado

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 08 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10165 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00024-OWW v. MEMORANDUM * AMADO MALDONADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Amado Maldonado appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and * 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). abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Maldonado contends that the district court erred by applying the two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court’s determination that the enhancement applied on the basis of Maldonado’s co-conspirator’s possession of the firearm was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1990) (co-conspirator’s possession of firearm during major drug sale involving large quantity of drugs was reasonably foreseeable to defendant and supported enhancement). Furthermore, Maldonado concedes that he saw the firearm prior to completing delivery of the drugs. See United States v. Willis, 899 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 1990) (no error in applying enhancement where it was reasonable to infer defendant had actually seen co-conspirator’s firearm). AFFIRMED. 2 10-10165