Hook

MEMORANDUM *

Russell Hook appeals his conviction and sentence arising out of his removal of minerals from property in the Plumas National Forest. See 16 U.S.C. § 551 ; 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (b) (removal of United States property) (conducting unauthorized work activity; here, mining.). We affirm.

There can be no doubt that the Bureau of Land Management withdrew the property in question (the Hound Dog claim’s property) from location and entry before Hook conducted his activities thereon. See Withdrawal of National Forest System Land for the Soda Rock Special Interest Area; California, 64 Fed.Reg. 47515 (Aug. 31, 1999). But, says Hook, that withdrawal was subject to “valid existing rights.” Id. So it was.

However, at best that only gets Hook halfway to his goal because he must point to some right that existed at the time of withdrawal. Certainly, he has not shown that he had any. Nevertheless, he notes that Donald E. Eno held the Hound Dog placer mining claim on the property. Hook suggests that he might have had Eno’s permission to be there, although he does not say and submitted no evidence that he did. He further argues that the property right in any minerals belongs to Eno in any…