United States v. Imad Hereimi , 357 F. App'x 82 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 08-30468
)
Plaintiff – Appellee, ) D.C. No. 3:08-CR-00007-JKS
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM *
)
IMAD SALIM HEREIMI, )
)
Defendant – Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 3, 2009
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Imad Salim Hereimi appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting
deprivation of honest services mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346. We
affirm.
(1) Hereimi first claims that the district court erred when it excluded certain
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
prior bad evidence regarding Nezar Maad, the person whom Hereimi was charged
with aiding and abetting. We disagree. The district court rather thought that the
bad acts were too remote in time and too dissimilar to be properly admissible
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). See United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d
959, 976 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lynch, 437 F.3d 902, 915 (9th Cir.
2006) (en banc). In any event, the district court determined that the probative
value of the evidence in question was substantially outweighed by its tendency
towards unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. That, it ruled, warranted
exclusion of the evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. On this
record we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in so ruling.
United States v. 87.98 Acres of Land More or Less in the County of Merced, 530
F.3d 899, 907 (9th Cir. 2008); Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1133
(9th Cir. 2000).
(2) Hereimi also claims that the district court erred when it gave a deliberate
indifference instruction to the jury, but his disagreement is with the propriety of
deliberate indifference instructions in general. His claim is foreclosed. See United
States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 924 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). So, too, is his
suggestion that, even when supported by the evidence, the instruction must be
avoided in some cases — this being one of them. See id. at 922–24; United States
2
v. Henderson, 721 F.2d 276, 278–79 (9th Cir. 1983). The district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
3