United States of America v. Adiya Thomas Graham, a.k.a. Adyia Thomas Graham, “Gat”

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADIYA THOMAS GRAHAM, a.k.a. Adyia
Thomas Graham, “Gat”,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30231
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00273-JO
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-30231
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 of 2 --