
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JWC, Juvenile Male, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2015.
    
    Filed May 18, 2015.
    Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carl B. Jensen, Jr., Law Office of Carl B. Jensen, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges and BAYLSON, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael M. Baylson, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

In this appeal, J.W.C. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5037, for committing sexual abuse on an Indian reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2242(2)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

J.W.C. argues there was insufficient evidence that he engaged in a sexual act with the victim. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2242(2) (“sexual abuse” requires a “sexual act”) & 2246(2)(A) (defining “sexual act”). The victim testified, however, that she awoke to find J.W.C.’s penis and finger in her vagina, and JW.C.’s DNA was discovered on the victim’s underwear. There thus plainly was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(A) (“[T]he term ‘sexual act’ means contact between the penis and the vulva....”); United States v. Gudino, 432 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam) (“The testimony of the one witness, if believed, was sufficient to support the conviction.... ”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     