Case ID: f-appx_340/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henrietta BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Treasury; United States Internal Revenue Service; Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-35557.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 3, 2009.
    Filed June 16, 2009.
    See also, 567 F.3d 1038.
    
      Beth Ann Creighton, Esquire, Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Later & Rose, Thomas M. Steenson, Esquire, Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Creighton & Rose, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Timothy F. Geithner is substituted for his predecessor, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., as Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
   AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Henrietta Browning appeals the district ■court’s rulings limiting the evidence she was allowed to present in her racial discrimination claim against the government. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court appropriately exercised its considerable discretion in excluding testimony that the court reasonably found could have allocated trial time inefficiently. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 688, 690 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, Browning has not shown that the alleged error “more probably than not” tainted the jury’s verdict, because much of the testimony that Browning contends was inappropriately excluded was actually presented at trial. Id. at 688.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Browning also appeals the district court's refusal to give a permissive jury instruction regarding pretext, which we address in a concurrently filed published opinion.