
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eber AGUILAR-ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10470.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 29, 2012.
    Anthony Edward Maingot, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Enrique Rene Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Eber Aguilar-Acevedo appeals his jury conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and for assault on a Federal Officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1) and 111(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the conviction and sentence.

The district court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for an adverse inference jury instruction because there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the police in failing to preserve the rocks used in the assault. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988); United States v. Artero, 121 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1997). The district court did not err in permitting lay witnesses to establish bodily injuries because the testimony was based on the witnesses’ personal observations and recollection of concrete facts, and it did not require specialized or technical knowledge to establish that a person was injured by rocks hitting his head. See Fed.R.Evid. 701.

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