Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gene AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-19
Citations: 366 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 09-50082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gene AUSTIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 750–750

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gene AUSTIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-50082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 2010.
Filed Feb. 19, 2010.
Jean-Claude Andre, Michael J. Raphael, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Newman, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gene Austin appeals his conviction for assaulting a United States Bureau of Prisons officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b). Austin argues that the trial court erred because it failed to provide the jury with a sufficiently precise instruction that the jury must agree on the particular conduct that violated the statute. We disagree. Even assuming that Austin was entitled to a "specific unanimity" instruction, see, e.g., Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-32, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); United States v. Gavin, 959 F.2d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1992), the district court instructed the jury that they must agree on the "particular act that amounted to assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering" with the officer. This instruction was adequate.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.