United States of America v. Oswaldo Santiago

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OSWALDO SANTIAGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10018
D.C. No. 4:11-cr-03580-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Oswaldo Santiago appeals his bench-trial conviction for possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Santiago asserts insufficiency of the evidence. When we review the
FILED
DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we construe the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, and then determine whether “any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the district court’s
finding that Santiago had “actual possession” of the ammunition, which satisfies
the “knowing possession” requirement of section 922(g)(1). See id. at 1169; see
also United States v. Thongsy, 577 F.3d 1036, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A
defendant has actual possession of an item if the person knows of its presence and
has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Moreover, innocent or transitory possession is not a
valid defense under section 922(g). See United States v. Johnson, 459 F.3d 990,
998 (9th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Santiago’s claim, Dixon v. United States, 548
U.S. 1 (2006), does not undermine Johnson. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor,
659 F.3d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 2011) (a three-judge panel is bound by a prior panel
decision unless its reasoning is “irreconcilable with an intervening decision by a
higher court”).
AFFIRMED.
13-10018 2

-- 2 of 2 --