Schweitzer

MEMORANDUM **

A jury convicted Defendant Brian Schweitzer of assaulting a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 . He raises two issues on appeal.

A. Jury Instruction

Because Defendant did not object to the instruction at trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Burt, 143 F.3d 1215, 1217-18 (9th Cir.1998). We find none.

The district court properly instructed the jury that the government had to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The second element was that Defendant assaulted a federal employee “while the federal ... employee was engaged in or on account of her offi *332 cial duties.” That formulation correctly tracks the statute. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the instruction was clear; a lay jury did not require additional guidance on the meaning of “engaged in ... official duties.” See United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.) (holding that a district court need not define common, readily understandable terms), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000).

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant also argues that insufficient evidence supported his conviction because the victim, a mail…