MEMORANDUM ***
A jury convicted Alphonse Bird of one count of sexual abuse and one count of aggravated sexual abuse on the Blackfeet reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a) and 2242(2)(b). On appeal, Bird argues that there was insufficient evidence for his convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
In our review, we must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and we affirm if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). We also must assume the jury determined the credibility of witnesses and resolved evidentiary conflicts in a way that supports the verdict. United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, a rational juror could have found Bird guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each count. At trial, the prosecution presented DNA evidence and testimony from both victims, an eyewitness to one incident, and the arresting officer, among others. Although Bird—who admitted meeting the victims—testified that the encounters were not sexual, we need not, and indeed cannot, accept his conflicting version of the facts. See Gillock, 886 F.2d at 222.
AFFIRMED.