Zislovich

MEMORANDUM **

Meryam Zislovich appeals her conviction for interfering with agency functions. See 36 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a)(1). Zislovich contends that (1) her conviction violated the First Amendment because the ranger arrested her solely because she engaged in constitutionally protected expression — tearing up *609 her citation, (2) the ranger did not have authority to arrest her, and (3) the ranger was no longer engaged in official duties after he issued her the citation and therefore she could not have interfered. We affirm.

I. NOTICE OF APPEAL

The government initially argues that this appeal is untimely. It is not. Zislovich’s notice of appeal was timely because the district court, sitting as an appellate court, reissued its decision. Rule 4(b) states that a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of “the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed.” Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). On the good cause shown — i.e., the motion and affidavit of Zislovich’s counsel stating that he did not receive notice of the judgment — the court reissued its decision. The government did not object to the motion.

The district court’s actions did not violate Rule…