United States of America v. Jose Antonio Navarro

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANTONIO NAVARRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50621
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00622-R
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Navarro appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm
and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50621 2
Navarro contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it failed to resolve a dispute regarding the facts
underlying a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight. But
Navarro never argued that there were specific factual errors in the presentence
report. Accordingly, the district court did not violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See United
States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Only specific factual
objections trigger Rule 32(i)(3)(B).”). To the extent Navarro now challenges the
factual basis for the enhancement, the district court did not plainly err. See United
States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 553 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --