UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,


DALLAS LAWRENCE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 12, 2016**

Portland, Oregon

Before: TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, HURWITZ, Circuit Judge, and BATTAGLIA,*** District Judge.

Dallas Lawrence appeals his jury conviction for two counts of strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(8), two counts of assault with intent to commit murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(1), one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(3), and two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). On appeal, Lawrence argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. United States v. James, 810 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2016). The evidence presented at trial permitted a rational jury to find Lawrence guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore we affirm.

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing all “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 (1979). In making this sufficiency determination, a court of appeal “must respect the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts by assuming that the jury resolved all conflicts in a manner that supports the verdict.” Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1995).

Lawrence’s sufficiency of the evidence argumen..................