United States v. 2020-03-06 | 19-50157 | USA V. MARY BRIDGES | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARY M. BRIDGES,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50157

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00265-ODW-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Mary M. Bridges appeals from the district court’s order affirming her bench-
trial conviction for assault within maritime jurisdiction, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 113(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bridges contends that the government presented insufficient evidence that

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-50157
the assault took place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. We need not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the standard of
review for this claim because it fails even on de novo review. See United States v.
Hong, 938 F.3d 1040, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2019). At trial, the government presented
expert testimony that the assault occurred at a residence on Oceanview Boulevard
on Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), that all of the residences on VAFB are
located within a particular area, and that the United States has jurisdiction over that
area. Testimony from the victim that that the assault occurred at a VAFB
residence located on Oceanview Avenue, rather than Oceanview Boulevard, does
not lead us to conclude that “no rational trier of fact could find” that the
government established the jurisdictional element of section 113. See United
States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also United
States v. Read, 918 F.3d 712, 718 (9th Cir. 2019). Rather, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found
that the assault occurred at a location within the jurisdiction of the United States.
See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
The government’s opposed motion for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.