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. Ivan ROLDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Defendant-Appellant Ivan Roldan was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced to 60 months in prison. Roldan appeals his sentence, specifically the four-level enhancement he received pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.
The district court did not err by applying the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. In cases involving “a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs,” the four-level enhancement is warranted “because the presence of the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.” United States v. Chadwell, 798 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 14(B)). The sentencing transcript indicates that the district court found that Roldan was involved in a drug deal and possessed the firearm in connection with that offense. Officers observed Roldan and Alexis Meneses loitering, late at night, in an area known for drug trafficking. Both men possessed large quantities of drugs and cash, and Roldan had a prior conviction for possessing drugs with intent to sell, for which he was on probation when he was arrested for the instant offense. Roldan had the loaded firearm in his pants pocket, where it was easily and immediately accessible. A preponderance of the evidence supports the four-level enhancement and the court did not abuse its discretion by applying it. See Chadwell, 798 F.3d at 917.
AFFIRMED.
Response sent, thank you
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. 19-10072
Decided: March 30, 2020
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)