United States of America v. Daniel E. Moren

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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for***
the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL E. MOREN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50576
D.C. No. CR-08-01268-GHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 4, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District***
Judge.
FILED
NOV 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Daniel E. Moren appeals from his conviction for possession of an unregistered
sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Moren was sentenced to
serve 12 months and 1 day, but was allowed to remain on bail pending this appeal.
Moren claims that there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Following a two-day bench trial, Moren was found guilty of the charged
offense. Our review of whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a
criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). See
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We must
determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.
A “firearm” is defined, in pertinent part, as “(1) a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length;” or “(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such
weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels
of less than 18 inches in length.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) (1)–(2). In order to obtain a
conviction under § 5861(d), the government must prove that the defendant knew that
the unregistered firearm in his possession was illegal to possess. See United States v.
Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th Cir. 2001).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The parties stipulated that the sawed-off shotgun was under the legal length and
unregistered. Thus, the government needed only to prove that Moren knowingly
possessed the unregistered firearm in order to sustain the conviction.
We conclude that the government’s evidence was sufficient to support Moren’s
conviction. One of the investigating detectives testified that Moren immediately
identified the shotgun as his and volunteered information about it. The other detective
testified that Moren stated that someone had brought the shotgun to him eight years
earlier and he knew that it was illegal. Although Moren testified that he confused the
illegal shotgun with a legal firearm that had been given to him to repair, the district
judge was entitled to reject this testimony. Because the district judge was in the best
position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, we resolve matters of credibility
in a manner supporting the verdict. See United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113, 1116
(9th Cir. 2009).
When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, we
conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found each of the elements to sustain
a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --