NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30177
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:19-cr-00398-DCN-1
v.
ANGEL TORRES, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Defendant Angel Torres (“Torres”) appeals the 70-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends the district court abused its
*
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).
discretion by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a
firearm with “an altered or obliterated serial number.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). We affirm.
“[A] firearm’s serial number is ‘altered or obliterated’ when it is materially
changed in a way that makes accurate information less accessible.” United States v.
Carter, 421 F.3d 909, 916 (9th Cir. 2005); see also id. at 912 (noting “altered”
requires a lesser degree of defacement than “obliterated”). The district court did not
clearly err in finding that the serial number on Torres’ firearm had been scratched
through in such a manner that the number was appreciably more difficult to discern;
it is not easily seen with the naked eye and is only (barely) visible in certain lighting
and in enhanced and enlarged photographs. This is sufficient for the enhancement
to apply: “[N]othing in the language or purpose of Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(4) suggests
that the defacement must make tracing impossible or extraordinarily difficult for the
enhancement to apply.” Id. at 916. As the district court held, the result would be
the same whether the court applied a preponderance of the evidence or clear and
convincing standard. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by applying
the enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
2