Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. EVERIST, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-16
Citations: 376 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 09-30314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. EVERIST, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. EVERIST, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 16, 2010.
Douglas W. Fong, Assistant U.S., USME-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Med-ford, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David D. Everist, Jacksonville, OR, pro se.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David D. Everist appeals pro se from the conviction and fine imposed for leaving refuse, debris, and litter on U.S. Forest Service property, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.11(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Everist contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because the Forest Service lacks jurisdiction to regulate the use of his land. The district court did not err because the Forest Service properly acted within its authority to regulate the surface use of forest lands. See United States v. Goldfield Deep Mines Co. of Nev., 644 F.2d 1307, 1309 (9th Cir.1981); see also 16 U.S.C. § 478, 551.
Everist also contends that he is entitled to just compensation because the regulation amounted to a regulatory taking. The record reflects that no constitutional taking occurred. See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538-39, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.