United States v. Stallings , 325 F. App'x 6 ( 2009 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
LARRY STALLINGS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Farris* and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Feldman with whom Feldman & Feldman was on brief for
appellant.
Donald Feith, Assistant United States Attorney with whom
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, was on brief for
appellee.
April 23, 2009
*
Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FARRIS, Circuit Judge. Larry Stallings alleges that the
district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior wire
conviction because admitting the evidence violated both a New
Hampshire district court local rule and Federal Rules of Evidence
403 and 404(b). We review applications of Federal Rules of
Evidence 403 and 404(b) and district court local rules for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1, 35 (1st
Cir. 2008); Crowe v. Bouduc, 334 F.3d 124, 134 (1st Cir. 2003);
Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 361 F.3d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 2003).
The court admitted Stallings’s prior conviction in the
interest of justice because it found 1) the government did not act
in bad faith; 2) the evidence was highly probative; and 3) there
was no unfair prejudice to Stallings as a result of the
untimeliness. District courts have “broad latitude in administering
local rules,” Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Precision Valley Aviation,
26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 1994), and they may choose to forgive a
party’s violation of a local rule. See United States v. Diaz-
Villafone, 874 F.2d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 1989). There was no abuse of
discretion.
Stallings is incorrect that the district court’s
admission of his prior wire fraud conviction violated Federal Rules
of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Evidence of his prior conviction was
offered to rebut Stallings’s claim that he was unaware that he was
-2-
engaged in fraud. His prior conviction thus tended to prove
intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake. Its admission did not
violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). “Only rarely—and in
extraordinarily compelling circumstances—will [this court] reverse
a district court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative
weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” United States v.
Whitney, 524 F.3d 134, 141 (1st Cir. 2008). There was no abuse of
discretion.
AFFIRMED.
-3-