Gomez
United States v. Gomez
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Alfredo B. Gomez appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) following a jury verdict. We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Gomez’s motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the Colt pistol possessed by Gomez was manufactured and assembled in Connecticut, and that it traveled in interstate commerce from the Colt manufacturing plant to Arizona before Gomez obtained it. See United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2006).
Nor did the district court err in declining to instruct the jury that the government had to prove that the pistol had been shipped in interstate commerce “in its presently assembled state.” The statutory definition of “firearm” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) does not include such language, and Gomez has not identified— nor have we found — a decision of this or any other circuit reading such language into the statute. See United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir.2004).