Unpublished Disposition, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appellant Corpuz-Alvarado timely appeals his sentence, following a guilty plea, for communicating a threat to injure another for the purpose of extorting money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(b). Punishment for this crime is controlled by section 2B3.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines which has a base offense level of 18 points.

Corpuz-Alvarado challenges the court's enhancement of his sentence under the Guidelines. He alleges that he should not have received three points for displaying or possessing a dangerous weapon under section 2B3. (b) (2) (C), four points adjustment for having "abducted" his victim under section 2B3.2(b) (4) (A), and lastly, another two points for abusing a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission of the offense as required under section 3B1.3. We disagree and affirm.

* There was ample evidence to support the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines in this case. Under the Guidelines, mere possession of a firearm during the commission of the crime is sufficient to enhance the defendant's sentence. See United States v. Restrepo, No. 88-3208, slip op. 11231, 11275 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 1989) (citing United States v. Otero, 868 F.2d 1412, 1415 (5th Cir. 1989)). Here, it is undisputed that Corpuz-Alvarado possessed a firearm while committing the crime of extortion. Therefore, the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence under section 2B3. (b) (2) (C).

Moreover, the district court judge did not err in concluding, from the ample evidence presented on the subject, that Corpuz-Alvarado abducted Randall Wolford and forced him involuntarily to enter the United States for the purpose of receiving ransom money for Wolford and Travis Curl. As a police officer trainee in Mexico, Corpuz-Alvarado was also in a position of trust. He abused this trust by abducting Wolford and holding him for ransom, according to the evidence before the trial judge. Thus, none of the court's findings was clearly erroneous and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of this case is well supported.

AFFIRMED.