United States v. Santiago Rodriguez-Aparicio

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2012
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. 11-10105
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00060-PMP-
PAL-1
v.
SANTIAGO HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ- MEMORANDUM *
APARICIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The district court’s denial of Rodriguez-Aparicio’s motion to exclude
evidence related to his threats was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in
inferences that may be drawn from the record,” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d
1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), because the district court carefully weighed
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence, and offered limiting
instructions to cure any unfairly prejudicial impact, including an instruction stating
that such threats were relevant only to show consciousness of guilt. See Fed R.
Evid. 402, 403; see also Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897–98 (9th Cir.
1996).
Rodriguez’s argument regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir.
1996).
AFFIRMED.
2