United States of America v. David D. Everist

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID D. EVERIST,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30314
D.C. No. 1:09-mj-04012-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-30314 2
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 (2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --