United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jay Baron Kaisserman, Defendant-appellant, 105 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 105 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Dec. 9, 1996. *Decided Dec. 18, 1996

Before: BROWNING, SKOPIL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges

MEMORANDUM** 

We affirm the conviction of Jay Kaiserman for residing in the Coronado National Forest without special use authorization in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b).

Kaiserman was required to abide by 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) whether or not he was engaged in prospecting or mining activities. As this court held in United States v. Doremus, 888 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1989), "s 261.1(b) is merely a recognition that mining operations 'may not be prohibited nor so unreasonably circumscribed as to amount to a prohibition.' " Section 478 of 16 U.S.C., which Kaiserman argues gives him the right to enter the national forest to engage in prospecting, states " [s]uch persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests." The common law doctrine to which Kaiserman refers does not override the explicit mandates of the U.S. Code.

The evidence was sufficient to convict Kaiserman of residing on a national forest without permission in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b). Two witnesses testified Kaiserman admitted he was living in the Coronado National Forest. Two witnesses testified he was living elsewhere, but " [i]n cases of conflicting testimony where credibility is necessarily at issue, we must be 'especially reluctant' to set aside the findings of the trial court." Gibbs v. Pierce County Law Enforcement Support, 785 F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.