Summary
In United States v. Smith, 844 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1988) (Table), 1988 WL 33362, the defendant, Smith, contended principally that, because the predicate state crime was designated a misdemeanor, he does not stand convicted of a felony under the Firearm Owners' Protection Act.
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Alvarez-LopezOpinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided March 30, 1988.
D.Nev.
AFFIRMED.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, Chief Judge, and HUG and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Wilson brings a section 1983 challenge to his incarceration in a medium-security prison for having injured three people while driving drunk. His complaint was dismissed as frivolous. We affirm.
Wilson's contention that he has a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in minimum-security classification was rejected in Maison v. Sumner, 810 F.2d 205 (9th Cir.1987), mem. aff'g 636 F.Supp. 595 (D.Nev.1986) (holding that Nevada statutes, as authoritatively construed by the Nevada Supreme Court, make minimum-security classification a matter of prison officials' discretion).
Wilson argues he was denied equal protection because he is in a medium-security prison, whereas drunk drivers who only injure one person are classified as minimum-security prisoners. However, there is obviously a rational basis for distinguishing between multi-victim and single-victim offenders. That is all the state need show to defeat an equal protection challenge. Inglese v. United States Parole Commission, 768 F.2d 932, 940 (9th Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.