United States of America v. Robert Donald Ahenakew

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT DONALD AHENAKEW,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30298
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00034-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Donald Ahenakew appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a); and Mont. Code Ann. § 45-6-204(1).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30298 2
Ahenakew contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1(b)(4) because it was not reasonably
foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a dangerous weapon. We
review for clear error a district court’s determination that acts by others were
reasonably foreseeable for purpose of imposing a dangerous weapon enhancement,
see United States v. Lavender, 224 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2000), and find
none. The record, which indicated that Ahenakew knew that his codefendant
always carried a knife, supports the district court’s conclusion that it was
reasonably foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a knife at the
time of the burglary. See Lavender, 224 F.3d at 942; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --