Opinion
No. 10-10452 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00066-GEB-1
12-13-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE CRAMER, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: O'SCANNLAIN and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
--------
George Cramer contends that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to convict him of three counts of willfully allowing his livestock to graze, without a permit, on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 4140.1(b)(l)(i), 4170.2-1. We disagree. Considered in the light most favorable to the United States, the evidence presented at trial was adequate to allow a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of each count of unlawful grazing beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Cramer also contends that the magistrate judge erred by admitting evidence of prior instances of uncharged grazing. Again, we disagree. That evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that the United States gave Cramer adequate pretrial notice of the evidence. See United States v. Beckman, 298 F.3d 788, 794 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.