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. Rich XIONGPAO, a.k.a. Thai Xiong, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Rich Xiongpao appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for clear error, United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006), we affirm.
Xiongpao contends that the district court clearly erred in determining that he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense such that he was ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and subject to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). It is undisputed that Xiongpao lived at a particular campsite for the sole purpose of tending to the marijuana grow site at issue and possessed a loaded shotgun, which was provided by the drug organization, at that campsite. Despite Xiongpao’s assertion that he only intended to use the shotgun to protect against animals and not other intruders, the district court reasonably concluded that Xiongpao did not meet his burden of showing that the shotgun was unconnected to the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Fernandez, 526 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of safety valve relief where district court explained that, even if weapons found in defendant’s home were intended to protect his family, defendant’s concern for his family’s safety “stemmed from the dangers created by his involvement in a drug conspiracy”).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 17-10108
Decided: June 15, 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)