FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10387
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00287-MMD-
VCF-1
v.
EDWIN FUENTES-ENAMORADO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Edwin Fuentes-Enamorado appeals from his jury conviction of possession of
a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and
924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fuentes-Enamorado argues that the evidence is insufficient to show he
knowingly possessed a firearm because a detective found the firearm in a shared
bedroom in a house occupied by multiple tenants. Yet, as Fuentes-Enamorado
acknowledges, his attorney failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
before the district court. We therefore review the district court’s decision for plain
error. See United States v. Lowry, 512 F.3d 1194, 1197–98 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“[W]hen a defendant does not preserve a claim of sufficiency of the evidence by
failing to make a motion for acquittal at the close of the evidence, [this court’s
review] requires reversal only upon plain error or to prevent a manifest injustice.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Under plain error review, relief is unavailable
unless error occurred that was plain, that affected substantial rights, and that had a
serious impact on the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th Cir.
2011).
The record does not indicate that any error occurred, much less plain error or
a miscarriage of justice. Rather, in viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, the record amply supports the jury’s verdict. See
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The detectives found the firearm
under a pillow on the bed in Fuentes-Enamorado’s bedroom, where the detective
also uncovered identifying documents, including Fuentes-Enamorado’s driver’s
license and immigration documents. According to a detective, Fuentes-Enamorado
also gave a detailed confession to possession of the firearm when he returned to
find government authorities at his home. The only disputed issue related to
possession of the handgun. At trial, the jury was entitled to disbelieve
Fuentes-Enamorado’s uncorroborated testimony contradicting his own alleged
confession. See United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010)
(en banc). Consequently, the record does not show any plain error or manifest
injustice requiring reversal.
AFFIRMED.
3