Jarvis

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Lowell Jarvis appeals his conviction and 41-month sentence following a bench trial for providing false information to a licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (a)(6) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Jarvis’ contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for public funds to hire two expert witnesses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(l) is without merit. See United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that to prove an abuse of discretion the defendant must demonstrate both that reasonably competent counsel would have required the assistance of the requested expert for a paying client and that he was prejudiced by the lack of expert assistance).

Jarvis has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was prejudiced by the district court’s denial of funds to hire the clinical psychologist. The psychologist was to have testified that Jarvis was incapable of knowingly making a false statement on the federal firearms transaction form—an element of the charged offense—which is prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). See…