Pettee

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Robert Holmes Pettee was convicted of two counts of knowingly and unlawfully transferring a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (o), and one count of knowingly possessing an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d). Pettee challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and claims that the district court erred in admitting character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm.

Pettee did not make a standard Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence at any point during or after his trial. We typically review sufficiency claims for plain error if no such motion is filed. See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir.2000). Pettee did, however, file a motion for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence, which was denied. Typically, we review the denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985).

We need not determine whether Pettee’s failure to move for a judgment of acquittal reduces our review of his sufficiency claim to plain error, or whether his motion for a…