United States of America v. Shavonte Hill

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAVONTE HILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10491
D.C. No.
2:17-cr-00132-JAD-NJK-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 21, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Shavonte Hill appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 26
months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

On appeal, Hill challenges only the sufficiency of the indictment against
him. However, he admits that the indictment “allege[d] the three basic elements
required to establish the culpability for being a felon in possession of a firearm.”
See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). That concession is fatal, as “[g]enerally, an indictment is
sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the charged offense so as to ensure the
right of the defendant not to be placed in double jeopardy and to be informed of the
offense charged.” United States v. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2004)
(quoting United States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 1995)).
The concession is also correct. The indictment states that “[o]n or about
January 27, 2017 . . . [Hill] . . . having been convicted of crimes punishable of
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . did knowingly possess . . . a Draco
7.62X39mm pistol with serial number DA 4743-15RO and was manufactured by
ROMARM/CUGIR . . . , said possession being in and affecting interstate
commerce and said firearms having been shipped and transported in interstate
commerce, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2).” That sets forth all of the elements for convicting Hill of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); United States v. Allen, 699 F.2d
453, 458 (9th Cir. 1982). Consequently, the indictment is sufficient under our
2

-- 2 of 3 --

precedent.1 Rodriguez, 360 F.3d at 958.
AFFIRMED.
1It is irrelevant that Hill “can be seen not to have possessed the firearm,” as
the indictment clearly alleged knowing possession. Moreover, Hill did not
challenge the sufficiency of the indictment below. Thus, the indictment must be
upheld, because “the necessary facts appear . . . [and] by fair construction can be
found within the terms of the indictment.” United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353,
361 (9th Cir. 1976) (quoting Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 433 (1932)).
3

-- 3 of 3 --