United States v. Byeong Jae Yoo
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Byeong Jae Yoo (“Yoo”) appeals his jury conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5), and possession of an unregistered silencer, 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d). He also appeals his sentence, contending that the application of the cross-reference provision set forth in § 2K2.1(c)(l) of the United States Sen *552 tencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) was error. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. See United States v. Duran, 59 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.1995) (whether a defendant has made the required factual foundation to support a requested jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Yoo failed to meet his burden of showing even slight evidence that he was induced by the government to possess the gun and silencer and that he was not predisposed to do so. See United States v. Marbella, 73 F.3d 1508, 1512 (9th Cir.1996) (defendant must present slight evidence of inducement and lack of predisposition to be entitled to entrapment instruction).