United States of America v. Nakoma James Powell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NAKOMA JAMES POWELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-30033
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00030-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The Government appeals the calculation of the sentence imposed by the
district court on Nakoma James Powell, specifically challenging Powell’s base
offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. We affirm.
FILED
APR 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

In the sentencing memoranda and at the sentencing hearing itself, the
Government and Powell both made arguments citing to both the 2015 and 2016
Sentencing Guidelines. Ultimately, the district court adopted the Probation
Office’s Presentence Investigation Report, which applied the 2016 Sentencing
Guidelines.
The Government argues that the district court applied the 2015 Sentencing
Guidelines, and that the district court should have imposed a sentencing
enhancement under § 2K2.1 because Powell’s relevant state conviction was a
categorical crime of violence. On appeal, the Government does not address the
2016 Sentencing Guidelines. “We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief” and arguments are considered
waived if a party “fail[s] to present a specific, cogent argument for our
consideration.” Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994). Because
the district court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report which explicitly
applied the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines, and because the Government waived any
argument based on the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --