UNITED STATES v. BELL (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Bell, Jr. (“Bell”) appeals his conviction and sentence after a two-day jury trial for one count of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing in light of our decision in United States v. Edling, 891 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2018).

Regarding Bell’s vouching claims, the government’s comments at trial, although troubling, were not so prejudicial as to materially affect the jury verdict. See United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. McChristian, 47 F.3d 1499, 1507–08 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1278 (9th Cir. 1993). At trial, Bell objected to only some of the statements he challenges here, but even under the more lenient standard of review for statements challenged at trial, any error was harmless. United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Where the defendant has objected to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial, we review for harmless error[,] ․ [w]here the defendant has not objected ․ we review for plain error.”).

Further, considering the substantial evidence adduced during the two-day jury trial, the statements that Bell challenges, though ill-advised, did not “seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] proceedings,” and were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal of Bell’s conviction. See United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564, 568 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We review de novo whether a defendant’s prior conviction constitutes a “crime of violence.” United States v. Rocha-Alvarado, 843 F.3d 802, 805–06 (9th Cir. 2016).

We vacate Bell’s sentence and remand for resentencing in light of our recent decision in United States v. Edling, which held that robbery under Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.380 is not a “crime of violence” as that phrase is defined in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Edling, 891 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2018); see also U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a), 4B1.2(a); N.R.S. § 200.380.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.