MEMORANDUM *

Gene Austin appeals his conviction for assaulting a United States Bureau of Prisons officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b). Austin argues that the trial court erred because it failed to provide the jury with a sufficiently precise instruction that the jury must agree on the particular conduct that violated the statute. We disagree. Even assuming that Austin was entitled to a “specific unanimity” instruction, see, e.g., Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-32, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); United States v. Gavin, 959 F.2d 788, 792 (9th Cir. 1992), the district court instructed the jury that they must agree on the “particular act that amounted to assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering” with the officer. This instruction was adequate.

AFFIRMED.