United States v. Reuben Conway ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10497
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-00013-GMN-NJK-1
v.
REUBEN CONWAY, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Reuben Conway appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction and 92-month sentence for being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 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).
Conway first asserts that the district court erred by treating his prior
conviction for possession of cocaine, in violation of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS)
§ 453.337, as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
This claim fails because, contrary to Conway’s assertion, § 453.337 is divisible.
See United States v. Figueroa-Beltran, 995 F.3d 724, 733 (9th Cir. 2021). Because
there is no dispute that Conway’s offense involved cocaine, the district court
properly treated it as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). See id. at 733-34.
Conway further argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case
because the indictment did not charge that he knew of his status as a convicted
felon. See Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). However, this
omission did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. See United States v.
Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[D]efects in an indictment do not deprive a
court of its power to adjudicate a case.”); United States v. Arnt, 474 F.3d 1159,
1162 (9th Cir. 2007) (same).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-10497