United States v. 2020-03-09 | 19-30171 | USA V. CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30171

D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00018-SPW-2

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Robert Hamilton appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in

*
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

MAR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-30171
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Hamilton first contends that, in calculating the drug quantity attributable to
him, the district court erroneously included quantities from three sales at which he
was not physically present. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). At
the sentencing hearing, a law enforcement agent testified that, at each of the three
challenged sales, Hamilton’s co-conspirator referenced Hamilton’s awareness of,
and involvement in, the conspiracy. In light of this testimony, the district court did
not clearly err by finding that each of these sales was done within the scope and in
furtherance of the conspiracy, and was reasonably foreseeable. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hamilton next challenges the district court’s application of a two-level
enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), for possessing a firearm in
connection with the drug conspiracy. The undisputed record reflects that, during
one of the drug transactions, Hamilton accepted a padlocked bag containing three
firearms from an undercover officer as partial payment for the drugs, and was left
in a vehicle with the bag containing the firearms. Contrary to Hamilton’s
contention, this was sufficient for the district court to conclude that Hamilton

3 19-30171
possessed the firearms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A) (“The enhancement
should be applied if the weapon was present, unless is it clearly improbable that the
weapon was connected with the offense.”); United States v. Boykin, 785 F.3d 1352,
1364 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.