Peshlakai

MEMORANDUM *

Rumaldo Peshlakai appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and for assault resulting in serious bodily injury. See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (a)(4), (a)(6); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1153 . We affirm the conviction, but vacate the sentence and remand.

(1) Peshlakai first complains that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the crime of assault resulting in serious bodily injury because it stated that the injury must “result” from the striking, rather than giving the more lengthy instruction about causation sought by him. We disagree. No doubt there can be times when the more lengthy instruction is required. See United States v. Main, 113 *475 F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir.1997). However, in this case there was no truly complicating fact pattern regarding intervening causes or the like. Rather, the jury was asked to determine whether Peshlakai participated in beating and kicking the victim. The word “result” sufficiently conveyed to the jury the legal causation principle that it had to use in order to find Peshlakai guilty as a principal. See United States v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116, 1123-24 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 1002 (9th…