USA V. DAVID JENSEN, No. 16-30024 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30024 D.C. No. 9:15-cr-00015-DLC MEMORANDUM* DAVID LAWRENCE JENSEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. David Lawrence Jensen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. * 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). §§ 922(g)(1), and 924(a)(2), (d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Jensen contends that the district court erred by imposing a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with a burglary. We review for clear error, see United States v. Newhoff, 627 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2010), and hold there is none. The record reflects that a stolen gun was found in Jensen’s residence, a credit card was stolen from the theft victim in the same incident, and an individual driving a car that fit the description of Jensen’s car used the stolen credit card on the day on which the victim reported the theft. The district court did not clearly err in holding that this evidence was sufficient, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish that Jensen took a firearm during the course of a burglary. See id. (district court’s inference that defendant stole a firearm was reasonable based on circumstantial evidence, which “can prove a sentencing fact”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30024

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.