Opinion of the Court — United States v. Anderson

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: March 21, 2002
Case: United States v. Anderson
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Robert Anderson appeals his 110-month sentence imposed following his conviction by guilty plea to one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 , two counts of possession of unregistered firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d), two counts of illegal transfer of firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (e), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We *440 have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. Anderson contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for transfer of an explosive device with reason to believe that it would be used in connection with another felony offense. Anderson specifically argues that the evidence relied upon by the district court shows that the agent to whom Anderson sold the explosives intended to use them to blow up his own car, thereby not committing another felony as 2K2.1(b)(5) requires. This contention is unpersuasive. The record shows that at sentencing the go…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.