211016P.pdf   04/20/2022  United States  v.  Junior Roldan Marin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  21-1016
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Judge Wollman, 
   Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case Conviction and Sentence. Sufficient evidence was presented 
   that Roldan-Marin knew he possessed a firearm while he knowingly was 
   subject to a no-contact order involving an intimate partner that was 
   issued after a hearing where he had an opportunity to participate: the 
   no-contact order showed he met the federal definition of intimate 
   partnership; the district court did not plainly err in establishing he had 
   the opportunity to participate; the no-contact order was presumed to be in 
   effect; and the documents showed the no-contact order remained in effect. 
   Because there was sufficient evidence he was a prohibited person under 
   section 922(g)(8), there is no need to address other categories of 
   prohibited persons. The prosecutor misstated the law about the presumption 
   of innocence, but defendant did not object. Under plain error review, the 
   improper remark did not prejudice his rights to obtain a fair trial, as 
   there was a single misstatement, the evidence against defendant was 
   strong, the district court made a curative instruction, and no exceptional 
   circumstances warrant reversal. Any error that the district court may have 
   made by increasing the base offense level because a prior Iowa assault 
   conviction was not a crime of violence was harmless error.