Larsen

MEMORANDUM **

Cynthia Larsen appeals from her jury trial conviction and sentence for unauthorized impairment of a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(5)(A)(ii). She argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that she caused more than a $5,000 loss to her victims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of Larsen’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.2002). We will not disturb the jury’s verdict if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see United States v. Johnson, 297 F.3d 845, 868 (9th Cir.2002).

Loss is “any reasonable cost to any victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (e)(ll). It includes the time that the victim’s salaried employees spend responding to the unauthorized intrusion. United States v. Middleton, 231 F.3d 1207, 1214 (9th Cir.2000)…