FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10292
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00424-LKK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANTHONY BATOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig M. Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Bator appeals pro se from the conviction and fine imposed for
constructing a road without an approved operating plan, in violation of 36 C.F.R.
§ 261.10(a), and damaging a natural feature or property of the United States, in
violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.9(a).
*
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).
Bator contends that the Forest Service lacks jurisdiction to regulate his
mining operations. To the contrary, 16 U.S.C. §§ 478 and 551 granted to the
Secretary of Agriculture the “power to adopt reasonable rules and regulations
regarding mining operations within the national forests.” United States v. Weiss,
642 F.2d 296, 298 (9th Cir. 1981).
Bator also contends that the he was entitled to an indictment by a grand jury,
proceedings before an Article III judge rather than a magistrate judge, and a jury
trial. Because the offenses charged were only petty offenses, a grand jury was not
required, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(b)(1); no consent was required for the trial before
the magistrate judge, see 18 U.S.C. § 3401(b); and there was no right to a jury trial,
see Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 543 (1989).
Bator also contends that based on certain comments and rulings made during
trial, the magistrate judge should have recused himself. The record does not reflect
that there was any “extrajudicial source” of bias or a “high degree of favoritism or
antagonism” requiring recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Bator’s remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10292