Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy BINFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM *
Timothy Binford appeals the sentence imposed on him by the district court following his jury trial conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. We affirm. We have already held that a conviction for felony harassment (threat to kill) under Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b) is categorically a conviction for a crime of violence. United States v. Werle, 877 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2017). Binford acknowledges that decision but argues that our earlier decision in United States v. Valdivia-Flores, 876 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2017), stands for the proposition that no Washington state conviction can serve as an aggravated felony at all. See id. at 1208–09. We are bound by our decision in Werle. The panel that rendered that decision was aware of Valdivia-Flores and nonetheless concluded to the contrary.
We have also held that a conviction for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) is categorically a crime of violence. United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 2018).
The issue that remains is whether the district court erred in enhancing Binford’s advisory guideline sentencing range under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. Application Note 14(A) to the relevant Guideline states that subsection (b)(6)(B) “appl[ies] if the firearm or ammunition facilitated or had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense․” (Emphasis added.) The district court found a sufficient factual connection to support application of the enhancement. The district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Binford possessed debit cards and credit cards in the names of other individuals. The contents of Binford’s bag included the firearm, drug paraphernalia and traces of methamphetamine, and items that were described as a “ ‘Burglary 101’ toolset.” Beyond the proximity of those items, the district court cited witness statements that connected Binford and his firearm to burglaries and robberies, and observations of Binford going into a pawn shop and engaging in other activity consistent with burglary and identity theft. The finding that the firearm had the potential for facilitating a burglary was not clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-30286
Decided: March 30, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)