Gonzalez

MEMORANDUM *

After being convicted by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm, Defendant-Appellant Noe Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm Gonzalez’s conviction but vacate his sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32. We remand to the district court for re-sentencing on Rule 32 grounds only.

*485 Gonzalez argues that his conviction should be reversed because the district court abused its discretion by not permitting him to elicit testimony from a witness regarding an officer’s alleged reputation for harassing people. We disagree. The district court has “wide discretion in determining whether evidence is supported by proper foundation.” United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir.1983). Here, the district court acted well within that discretion in concluding that Gonzalez failed to lay the requisite foundation for the reputation evidence. Gonzalez did not elicit information from the witness regarding how long the witness had been acquainted with the officer, or with the officer’s reputation. Nor did he attempt to establish the basis for the witness’s knowledge. See United States v. Salazar, 425 F.2d 1284, 1286 (9th Cir.1970); United States v.…