Teeth

MEMORANDUM **

A jury convicted Defendant Neil Len Teeth of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We affirm.

1. On de novo review, United States v. Johnson, 357 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir.2004), we hold that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for acquittal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant possessed a firearm. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (stating standard of review).

Even assuming that the jury had to find that Defendant possessed the specific firearm described in the indictment, but see United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2006), there was sufficient evidence that he did. For example, the jury learned that Defendant’s girlfriend *641 purchased, and later pawned, the very rifle in question and that between those dates Defendant possessed and hunted with a rifle consistent with a description of that rifle.

2. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Defendant’s…