Unpublished Disposition, 924 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 924 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1991)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Kevin Mark GREENE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-50442.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1990.* Decided Jan. 28, 1991.

Before HUG, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


Defendant Kevin Greene appeals his sentence and conviction, following a jury trial, for possession of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1), 924(a) (1), and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He contends that the jury had insufficient evidence to convict him and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences on him when his two statutory violations arose from a single act.

Because Greene failed to move for judgment of acquittal during trial, he "effectively waived his objection to the sufficiency of the government's evidence." United States v. Comerford, 857 F.2d 1323, 1324 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1016, (1989). We may review the denial of a nonrenewed motion for acquittal only "to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice," id. (quoting United States v. Ochoa-Torres, 626 F.2d 689, 691 (9th Cir. 1980), or for plain error. See id. Because there was substantial evidence to convict Greene, we find no plain error or miscarriage of justice in letting his conviction stand.

We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment.1  See United States v. Rachels, 820 F.2d 325, 328 (9th Cir. 1987). A district court may impose consecutive sentences when the offense violates two different statutes if each statute requires proof of a fact which the other does not. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); United States v. Ching, 682 F.2d 799, 802 (9th Cir. 1982). These convictions satisfy this requirement. Count one, felon in possession of a firearm, required proof of defendant's prior felony conviction. Count two, possession of an unregistered firearm, required proof that the gun was not registered to the defendant. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences, even though the defendant received the maximum sentence on each count.



The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3


Because the crimes occurred before November 1, 1987, Greene was not sentenced under the sentencing guidelines