22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47a,MEMORANDUM Miguel Mendiola-Martinez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for being an illegal alien in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Mendiola-Martinez contends that the district court erred by instructing the jury that filing an application for adjustment of immigration status does not make a defendant “legally present” for purposes of determining whether he violated 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5)(A). This contention fails because Mendiola-Martinez’s pending 1-485 application for adjustment of status does not affect his removability, and Mendiola-Martinez points to no statute that renders his presence lawful based upon his application for adjustment of status. See United States v. Latu, 479 F.3d 1153, 1155, 1159 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Smith, 561 F.3d 934, 938-39 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that the sufficiency of a jury instruction is subject to harmless error review). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a7,

MEMORANDUM

Miguel Mendiola-Martinez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for being an illegal alien in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Mendiola-Martinez contends that the district court erred by instructing the jury that filing an application for adjustment of immigration status does not make a defendant “legally present” for purposes of determining whether he violated 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5)(A). This contention fails because Mendiola-Martinez’s pending 1-485 application for adjustment of status does not affect his removability, and Mendiola-Martinez points to no statute that renders his presence lawful based upon his application for adjustment of status. See United States v. Latu, 479 F.3d 1153, 1155, 1159 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Smith, 561 F.3d 934, 938-39 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that the sufficiency of a jury instruction is subject to harmless error review).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.