United States of America v. Michael Jeffrey Anderson

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JEFFREY ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30248
D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00174-RFC-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 2, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Anderson appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 29(a) motion, asserting that the government presented
insufficient evidence for a rational fact-finder to infer Anderson knew that he
FILED
MAR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
possessed a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
When considering a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, the court views
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and determines if any
rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443. U.S. 307, 319
(1979). Knowledge can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Staples v.
United States, 511 U.S. 600, 616 n.11 (1994). Here, Anderson kept a collection of
thirty-one high-quality firearms, numerous accessories, and nearly 35,000 rounds
of ammunition. He saved multiple receipts for his purchases. He possessed two
nearly identical semi-automatic military rifles but for the modifications that
converted one of the weapons into a machine gun. The machine gun was equipped
with several after-market accessories, including an $800 scope, front-rail system,
vertical foregrip, ammunition carrier, and carry handle. At trial, modifications to
the rifle were described as “extensive” and visible to the naked eye.
From the totality of the evidence presented by the government, the jury
could reasonably infer that Anderson knew he possessed a machine gun. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --