Scotford

MEMORANDUM *

Robert Jan Scotford appeals his convictions for violations of four forest regulations, each promulgated pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

We review claims of insufficient evidence “de novo to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2004). We review a district court’s interpretation of a regulation de novo. Id. at 931 .

I

Sufficient evidence existed to support Scotford’s conviction for “[flailing to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by a Forest Officer.” See 36 C.F.R. § 261.10 (m). The magistrate judge heard Officer Thompson’s testimony that he called Scotford by name and unambiguously told him to stop several times during their chase. Officer Thompson also testified that Scotford repeatedly failed to stop in the face of these directives.

*563 II

Sufficient evidence existed to support Scotford’s conviction for “[tjhreatening, resisting,…