United States v. Donovan Bolen

MEMORANDUM

Donovan Bolen and David Von Bargen were convicted by separate juries of offenses relating to two fires and the theft of guns from a pawn shop. Bolen appeals various issues arising from his conviction and Von Bargen appeals his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Bolen argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), and thus that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, because the only evidence that he had used or carried a Molotov cocktail to start the two fires was Candace Trunnell’s testimony, which lacked credibility. This argument fails. Credibility is a factual issue for the jury to determine, see United States v, Alarcon-Simi, 300 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2002), and Trun-nell’s testimony was not so incredible on its face that it warranted a judgment of acquittal, see United States v. Rojas, 554 F.2d 938, 943 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the district court properly denied Bolen’s Rule 29 motion. See United States v. Yossunthorn, 167 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.1999).

Nor did the district court abuse its broad discretion…