United States of America v. JOSEPH W. AARNES, AKA Joseph Warren Aarnes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH W. AARNES, AKA Joseph
Warren Aarnes,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30031
D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00038-SMJ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Joseph W. Aarnes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession
of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-30031
Aarnes contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) by failing to verify that he had reviewed and discussed the
presentence investigation report (“PSR”) with counsel. Even assuming the district
court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A), the error was harmless because Aarnes does not
allege that he was unable to review the PSR or discuss it with counsel, nor does
Aarnes identify any additional factual disputes that he would have presented to the
district court if given the opportunity. See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858,
863-64 (9th Cir. 2007) (failure to confirm defendant’s review of the PSR was
harmless because defendant did not identify “any fact in the PSR he would have
disputed had the sentencing judge afforded him the opportunity”).
Aarnes also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider or address his childhood abuse and by relying on the clearly erroneous
fact that he possessed more than one firearm silencer. We review for plain error,
see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered
Aarnes’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, while the district
court appears to have inadvertently referred to Aarnes’s possession of multiple
firearm silencers, Aarnes has not shown that this was the basis for the sentence.
See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --