Hoagland

MEMORANDUM *

Jeffrey Charles Hoagland appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (“Count One”) and one count of use of a deadly weapon or destructive device during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A), (B), and (D) (“Count Two”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm Hoagland’s conviction and sentence for Count Two, but issue a “limited remand” on Count One pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

We reject Hoagland’s contention that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he used a “destructive device” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(4). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that Hoagland had an operable grenade. See United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir.2002). The bank teller identified the object Hoagland used to threaten her as a “hand grenade” and provided a description of it. The jury was entitled to find her testimony credible and draw the inference that…