22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4bd,MEMORANDUM Robert Donald Ahenakew appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); and Mont.Code Ann. § 45-6-204(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Ahenakew contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1(b)(4) because it was not reasonably foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a dangerous weapon. We review for clear error a district court’s determination that acts by others were reasonably foreseeable for purpose of imposing a dangerous weapon enhancement, see United States v. Lavender, 224 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir.2000), and find none. The record, which indicated that Ahenakew knew that his codefendant always carried a knife, supports the district court’s conclusion that it was reasonably foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a knife at the time of the burglary. See Lavender, 224 F.3d at 942 ; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ea,

MEMORANDUM

Robert Donald Ahenakew appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); and Mont.Code Ann. § 45-6-204(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ahenakew contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1(b)(4) because it was not reasonably foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a dangerous weapon. We review for clear error a district court’s determination that acts by others were reasonably foreseeable for purpose of imposing a dangerous weapon enhancement, see United States v. Lavender, 224 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir.2000), and find none. The record, which indicated that Ahenakew knew that his codefendant always carried a knife, supports the district court’s conclusion that it was reasonably foreseeable that Ahenakew’s codefendant would possess a knife at the time of the burglary. See Lavender, 224 F.3d at 942 ; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.