United States v. Dustin Saksa , 533 F. App'x 783 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30159
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00131-JDS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DUSTIN NEAL SAKSA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2013**
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, MURGUIA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Dustin Neal Saksa appeals his conviction for possession of an unregistered
sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Following a two-day trial,
a jury found Saksa guilty of the charged offense. Saksa contends that there was
*
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).
insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. When reviewing if a conviction is supported by sufficient
evidence, we must determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We affirm.
Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), it is unlawful for any person to receive or
possess a “firearm” that is not registered to him under the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record. A “firearm” includes, among other things, “a
shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length,” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(a)(1), or a “weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has
an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches
in length,” id. § 5845(a)(2). In order to obtain a conviction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant knew of the features that made his firearm illegal to possess. Staples v.
United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994); United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683,
687-88 (9th Cir. 2001). Possession may be established constructively by showing
that the defendant both knew of the presence of contraband and had power to
exercise dominion and control over it. United States v. Rodriguez, 761 F.2d 1339,
2
1341 (9th Cir. 1985). Dominion and control may be proven through circumstantial
evidence. United States v. Vasquez, 654 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2011).
The government’s evidence was sufficient to support Saksa’s conviction.
Saksa confessed to investigators that he received the firearm at issue, which was
lawfully recovered from an unfinished ceiling in a room adjacent to Saksa’s
bedroom. He also admitted that he and his brother sawed the firearm’s barrel
while Saksa affixed electrical tape around it. Saksa’s fingerprints were found on
the electrical tape removed from the firearm, and Saksa accurately described the
firearm to investigators. This evidence supports the jury’s finding that Saksa had
knowledge of the firearm and exercised control over it in order to make
modifications thereto. Furthermore, the government introduced evidence
indicating that the firearm had a barrel that was 14.5 inches in length and was not
registered to Saksa or any other individual.
Although defense witnesses furnished contradictory testimony and Saksa
himself offered a different version of the facts to which the government’s witnesses
testified, credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
of reasonable inferences from the facts are jury functions. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319. Accordingly, we “must respect the exclusive province of the jury . . . by
assuming that [it] resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the
3
verdict,” United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir. 1977). Having
viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude
that a rational trier of fact could have found each element necessary to sustain a
conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).
AFFIRMED.
4