Hernandez-Hernandez

MEMORANDUM **

Reuben Hernandez-Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence for unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction on the ground that the district court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion. “We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.” United, States v. Zavala-Mendez, 411 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir.2005). “The question we must ask is whether ... viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

The district court did not err in denying the Rule 29 motion. First, although the government did not establish that appellant had entered the United States on or about March 4, 2004, as alleged in the indictment, the government can “charge in the conjunctive and prove in the disjunctive.” United States v. Ewain, 88 F.3d 689, 696 (9th Cir.1996). Second, the government established that appellant had been…