United States v. 2010-11-16 | 09-50559 | USA V. DANTE ANDERSON | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50559
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
v.  2:08-cr-00121-JSL-1
DANTE KENYON ANDERSON, OPINION
Defendant-Appellee. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 3, 2010*
Pasadena, California
Filed November 16, 2010
Before: Harry Pregerson, Kenneth F. Ripple,** and
Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Judge, United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
18557

-- 1 of 4 --

COUNSEL
Sean Kennedy, Federal Public Defender, Michael Tanaka,
Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for
the plaintiff-appellant.
18558 UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON

-- 2 of 4 --

André Birotte Jr., United States Attorney, Christine C. Ewell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Shawn J. Nelson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the
defendant-appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The United States appeals the district court’s dismissal of
Defendant-Appellee Dante Anderson’s indictment for being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The court concluded that the defendant’s two
predicate felony convictions were insufficient to support a
federal indictment because each resulted from a plea of nolo
contendere in a California state court and, therefore, did not
conclusively establish Anderson’s guilt.
[1] Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibits possession of a
firearm by “any person . . . who has been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year.” “What constitutes a conviction of such
a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the
jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 921(a)(20); accord United States v. Valerio, 441 F.3d 837,
839 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Under the federal felon in possession
statute, state law controls on whether a person has a ‘convic-
tion,’ . . . .”).
[2] The California Penal Code, section 1016(3), provides
that “[t]he legal effect of [a nolo contendere] plea, to a crime
punishable as a felony, shall be the same as that of a plea of
guilty for all purposes.” A plea of nolo contendere “is the
functional equivalent of a guilty plea.” People v. Whitfield, 54
Cal. Rptr. 2d 370, 377 (Ct. App. 1996).
18559 UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON

-- 3 of 4 --

[3] The district court’s holding was clearly erroneous. Sec-
tion 922(g)(1) requires only that the defendant was “convict-
ed” of a previous felony, as defined by the jurisdiction in
which the proceedings were held. California law treats a plea
of nolo contendere as equivalent to a guilty plea. Thus,
Anderson’s nolo contendere pleas resulted in convictions, and
either conviction was sufficient to qualify as a predicate fel-
ony.
[4] The district court’s dismissal of the indictment under
§ 922(g)(1) is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
18560 UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON

-- 4 of 4 --