United States of America v. Donavan Lee Gomez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONAVAN LEE GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30235
D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00137-DCN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Donovan Lee Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-30235
Gomez contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in
connection with another felony offense. We review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of a given
case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170
(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reflects that law enforcement located a
firearm in close proximity to a safe containing multiple controlled substances that
Gomez’s girlfriend admitted to possessing with intent to sell. The record further
reflects that Gomez provided the funds to purchase both the firearm and the
controlled substances and served as a liaison between his girlfriend and the drug
supplier. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
by a preponderance of the evidence that Gomez’s possession of the firearm had the
potential of facilitating another felony offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt.
n.14(B); United States v. Chadwell, 798 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2015).
Moreover, contrary to Gomez’s contention, the district court did not err by relying
on uncontested factual assertions in the presentence report to conclude that the
enhancement applied. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A); United States v. Snipe,
515 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --