Thurber

MEMORANDUM

Jeffrey Leigh Thurber appeals his conviction for attempted persuasion of a minor to engage in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (b). We affirm.

(1) Thurber first asserts that the district court lacks jurisdiction because the case was presented to the grand jury by a Special Assistant United States Attorney (“SAUSA”), who was not properly supervised and directed by the United States Attorney. Were his claim factually true, he would have a point. However, the record belies the claim. Thus, Thurber’s jurisdictional claim fails. See United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 892 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Plesinski, 912 F.2d 1033, 1038 (9th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1994).

Thurber now asserts that the appointment process of the SAUSA was defective, and, therefore, jurisdiction was lacking. We disagree. A mere process defect is not a jurisdictional issue. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254-56 , 108 S.Ct. 2369, 2373-74 , 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988); Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1038 . Thurber’s failure to raise the issue before trial waived it. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3); Durham, 941 F.2d at 892 . Thus, we…