United States of America v. George Cramer

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge of the U.S. District**
Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE CRAMER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10452
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00066-GEB-1
MEMORANDUM*
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.**
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
FILED
DEC 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Management. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 4140.1(b)(1)(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.

-- 2 of 2 --