USA V. ADIYA GRAHAM, No. 16-30231 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-30231 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00273-JO v. MEMORANDUM* ADIYA THOMAS GRAHAM, a.k.a. Adyia Thomas Graham, “Gat”, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Adiya Thomas Graham appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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). Graham challenges the district court’s imposition of a four-level increase to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We review the district court’s identification and interpretation of the correct sentencing guideline de novo, its findings of fact 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). The district court did not clearly err in finding, based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the government at sentencing, that Graham more likely than not committed the Oregon felony offense of unlawful use of a weapon under Oregon Revised Statutes § 166.220. See United States v. Newhoff, 627 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based on reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Guidelines to the facts of this case and imposing the four-level increase to Graham’s offense level. AFFIRMED. 2 16-30231

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.