Habben

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Habben (“Habben”) challenges his conviction and sentence for various crimes related to the possession and distribution of anabolic steroids on the grounds that evidence was improperly admitted at trial, that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdicts, and that the district court improperly calculated the base level of the sentence. We affirm.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Whether evidence was properly admitted at trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1419 (9th Cir.1986). Claims not raised before the district court are deemed waived, or limited to review for plain error. See United States v. Quintana-Torres, 235 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir.2000); Fed.R.Evid. 103(d). Whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is reviewed de novo. United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962 , 971 n. 8 (9th *974 Cir.2004). The district court’s factual findings, including factual determinations for sentencing purposes, are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Fox, 189 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.1999).

Habben’s challenge under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22 (2000) to the…

concurring:

I concur in the result.