NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30277
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
6:16-cr-00002-SEH-1
v.
TRENT SCENTAIL SMITH, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Trent Scentail Smith appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to eight methamphetamine-trafficking offenses. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Smith first contends that it was error to apply the two-level firearm
enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Application
of the enhancement was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,
852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Smith pled guilty to eight drug-
related offenses, including conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine
from approximately November 2014 to July 2015. During that timeframe, police
found a nine millimeter Ruger handgun, which Smith concedes belonged to him, in
his apartment along with drugs, a scale, and drug paraphernalia. Police later found
a loaded magazine compatible with the handgun in Smith’s car along with several
pounds of methamphetamine. Given these facts, it is not “clearly improbable” that
Smith possessed the handgun in connection with the conspiracy to possess and
distribute methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) app. n. 11; United States
v. Boykin, 785 F.3d 1352, 1364 (9th Cir. 2015).
Smith next contends that the amount of methamphetamine used to calculate
his base offense level should have been reduced because the government engaged in
sentencing entrapment and sentencing manipulation. There was no error in rejecting
Smith’s contention of sentencing entrapment. The finding that Smith “was a willing
seller of an unlawful substance [who] undertook that course of conduct willingly”
was not clearly erroneous given Smith’s concessions regarding the amount of
methamphetamine he previously transported and his offers to sell increased amounts
2
during controlled buys. See United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629, 639–40 (9th Cir.
2010).
Likewise, there was no error in rejecting Smith’s contention of sentencing
manipulation. One of the investigating officers testified during the sentencing
hearing and identified several legitimate law enforcement purposes for continuing
the investigation. See United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, it was not clear error to find that Smith failed to demonstrate law
enforcement continued its investigation solely for the purpose of increasing his
sentence. See id.
AFFIRMED.
3