United States v. Don White ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10089
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00144-KJD-PAL-1
v.
DON EUGENE WHITE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 4, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and KANE,*** District
Judge.
Don Eugene White appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) on the bases that the
*
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).
***
The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
district court failed to instruct the jury that the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he knew of his felon status at the time of the firearm
possession, as required by Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and that
the indictment failed to allege that he had this knowledge. White also appeals his
sentence on the basis that it is substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm White’s conviction
and sentence.
1. Because White did not request a knowledge instruction, we review the
district court’s failure to give one for plain error. See United States v. Benamor,
937 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, White must establish “(1) an
error that (2) was clear or obvious and not subject to reasonable dispute that (3)
affected [his] substantial rights by affecting the outcome of the proceedings and (4)
seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Liew, 856 F.3d 585, 596 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing
United States v. Walls, 784 F.3d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 2015)). Under Rehaif, the
district court clearly erred. See Benamor, 937 F.3d at 1188.
However, White cannot show that this deficiency affected his substantial
rights. In addition to stipulating at trial that he had been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one year prior to the date of the
alleged firearm possession, White had at least four previous convictions for which
2 19-10089
he received sentences in excess of one year, and he served a period of incarceration
of over five years in connection with those convictions. Therefore, there is no
reasonable probability that White was unaware that he was a felon at the time he
possessed the firearm and that, but for the district court’s error, the outcome of the
proceeding would have been different. See Benamor, 937 F.3d at 1189 (citing
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016)). Accordingly,
White is not entitled to relief on this basis.
2. Similarly, White challenges the indictment’s failure to allege that he
knew he was a felon. We review this claim for plain error. See United States v.
Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (first citing United States v. Leos-
Maldonado, 302 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002); and then citing United States v.
Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 846 (9th Cir. 2002)). For the same reasons that the
district court’s failure to instruct the jury in accordance with Rehaif did not
constitute plain error, the indictment’s deficiency did not constitute plain error:
White cannot show that the deficiency affected his substantial rights. Thus, we
affirm White’s conviction.
3. Finally, White challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence, primarily asserting that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors properly and that the district court’s sentence punished him for
exercising his Sixth Amendment right to trial and caused an unwarranted disparity
3 19-10089
when compared to the typical sentences of similarly situated defendants. We
review this claim for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97
(2007)). Upon review of the record, we conclude that: (1) the record does not
reflect White’s contention that his sentence punished him for exercising his Sixth
Amendment right to trial and (2) “the record as a whole reflects rational and
meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”
United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quoting
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc)). Accordingly,
we affirm White’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4 19-10089