FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 12 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30063
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:15-cr-00062-BMM-1
v.
W.C., JUVENILE MALE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2016**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
W.C. was adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent and sentenced to three
years of probation after it was determined by bench trial that he had committed two
counts of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and
*
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).
2241(c). W.C. argues there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his
conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at a bench trial de novo.
See United States v. Jiang, 476 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2007). We must affirm a
conviction if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Our review of the record confirms sufficient evidence was presented at trial
from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that W.C.
committed the essential elements of the charged crimes. Although conflicting
testimony was presented at trial, the district court carefully considered all of the
evidence presented and was able to evaluate the demeanor and disposition of the
witnesses. The district court heard the victims testify regarding the instances of
sexual abuse, and also heard the testimony of the victims’ parents. W.C. testified
in his own defense, as did his mother. We must respect the exclusive province of
the fact finder to determine the credibility of these witnesses, to resolve the
evidentiary conflicts raised, and to draw reasonable inferences from proven facts.
See United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
2