Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Zackary Urias pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the Southern District of California. The district court, presided over by Senior Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 59 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Urias appealed, challenging the district court's consideration of evidence at sentencing, the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him.
On appeal, Urias argued that the district court improperly reviewed evidence from a separate case during his sentencing proceedings without providing adequate notice or opportunity for adversarial testing. He also contested the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, asserting that his conduct did not warrant such a denial. Finally, he raised a Second Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession statute as applied to his circumstances. The government defended the sentence and the district court's factual findings, citing the defendant's false statements at arrest and subsequent jailhouse conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence in full. First, the court held that the district court did not plainly err in its consideration of evidence. Although the district court may have reviewed evidence from a separate case, the record did not show reliance on any factual information unavailable to Urias. The court noted that the videos were lodged in the record before sentencing and that Urias was given an opportunity to object, satisfying the requirements of adversarial testing under United States v. Baldrich and United States v. Vanderwerfhorst.
Second, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. The denial was supported by Urias's false denials at the time of his arrest and his criminal conduct while in jail awaiting resolution of his case. The court found this consistent with United States v. Rutledge and United States v. Mara, which permit consideration of post-offense conduct such as jailhouse fights in denying § 3E1.1 reductions. Third, the court rejected Urias's Second Amendment challenge, citing the en banc decision in United States v. Duarte, which upheld § 922(g)(1) as applied to the defendant.
Key Takeaways
- A district court does not plainly err by reviewing evidence from a related case at sentencing if the evidence is lodged in the record and the defendant has notice and an opportunity to object.
- False statements at arrest and violent or criminal conduct while detained pending sentencing can support denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
- The Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Duarte forecloses as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felons in possession of ammunition.
- Below-guidelines sentences are affirmed when the district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous and its legal conclusions are consistent with binding precedent.
- Plain error review applies to sentencing evidentiary objections not raised in the district court, requiring a showing of affected substantial rights.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit's deference to district courts in sentencing determinations, particularly regarding the consideration of evidence and acceptance-of-responsibility findings. It confirms that post-arrest and presentence detention conduct, including dishonesty and institutional infractions, are valid grounds for denying § 3E1.1 reductions. The decision also underscores the binding effect of Duarte on Second Amendment challenges to felon-in-possession laws within the circuit, limiting the viability of as-applied challenges after Bruen. While unpublished and non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the ruling illustrates the court's application of plain and clear error standards in routine sentencing appeals.