N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STANLEY PATRIC K W EB ER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-30022

D.C . No. 4:18-c r-00014-B M M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na B ria n M
. M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2020 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd TUNHEIM , * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED FEB 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Stanle y W e be r a ppe a ls his c onvic tion, a

rguing tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion whe n it a llowe d the prose c ution to pre se nt c e rta in prope nsity
e vide nc e at

tria l pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 414. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. 1. W e be r c ha lle nge s the a pplic a tion of Unite d State s v . Le May , 260 F.3d 1018 (9th C ir. 2001) for de te rm ining whe t he r to a dm it R

ule 414 e vide nc e . W e be r
a sse rts tha

t “ the Le May ana ly sis doe s not re quire c ourts to ba la nc e the probative
va lue of [R

ule 414] e v ide n c e a ga inst a nything,” “ giv[ing] the gove rnm e nt [a ] forbidde n bla

nk c he c k to a dm it se xua l m isc onduc t e vide nc e whe ne ve r it wishe s.” W e disa gre e . In Le m ay , we e xpre ssly a c knowle dge d tha t “ e vide nc e of a de fe nda n t’ s prior a c ts of m ole sta

tion will alw ay

s be e m otiona lly

c ha rge d a nd infla m m a tory ,” id. at 1030 (e m

pha sis a d d e d), a

nd re quire s tha

t the “ prote c tions of R ule 403 re m a in in pla c e to e nsure ” tha t “ the right to a

fa ir tria l re m a ins a de quat e ly
sa fe gua rde d,” id. at 1026. Inde e d, Le May de m ands tha

t c ourts “ c are fully

e va luate the p ote ntia l infla

m m a t ory nature of the proffe re d te stim ony ” a ga inst theprobative
va lue of the e vide nc e offe re d. Id. at 1030. Thus, c ontra ry to W e b e r’ s a

rgum e nts,
c ourts a pply ing Le

May m ust c onduc t the ne c e ssa

ry R ule 403 ba la

nc i ng, a dm itting R ule 414 e vide nc e only

whe n the Le

May fa c tors sugge s t tha

t its re le va

nc e is not substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by

its pre judic ia l e ffe c t. Id. at

1031.
2In fa c t, a lthough Le May ’ s fa c tors do not re quire a c ourt to e xplic itly

sta te the da nge rs of the R

ule 414 e vide nc e at issue , the fa c tors only m ake se nse whe n one first a c knowle d ge s the inhe re ntly pre judic ia l na

ture of suc h

e vide nc e . If we ighing
e vide nc e ’ s pre

judic i a l e ffe c t

we re not re quire d unde r the Le may ana ly sis, thesole que stion for a

c ourt to c onside r would be whe the r the e vide nc e wa s re le va nt; the re would be no ne e d to c onside r the de gre e of re le v anc e , a s Le

May de m ands. Se e id.
a t 1027–30. Ac c ordingly , we ighing thepre judic ia l e ffe c t a ga inst theprobative
va lue of suc h

e vide n c e is a

vita l pie c e of the Le

May fa c tor a na ly sis. Fina lly , W e be r argue s tha t “ Le may m ust be im prope rly ske w e d,” be c a

use
c a se la w “ shows tha

t distric t c ourts a dm it e xtra ne ous se xua l m isc onduc t e vide nc e
a s a m a tte r of c ourse .” Howe ve r, W e be r’ s c onc lusory argum e n t is fla we d. Tha t
e vide nc e is routine ly

a dm i tte d doe sn’ t ne c e s sa rily prove tha t the ana ly sis by

whic h it is a dm itte d is fla

we d, e spe c ia lly

whe re , a s he re : (1) the ana ly sis is, by its ve ry
nature , fa c t- a

nd c onte x t-de pe nde nt, se e id. at 1026–31; a nd (2) “ the c l e ar inte nt of C ongre ss” in e na c ting R

ule 414 wa s “ that e vide nc e of prior simila r a c ts be
a dm itte d in c hild m ole sta

tion prose c utions,” id. a t 1030; se e also United State s v . Sioux , 362 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha t R ule s 413–415

“ e s ta b lish[e d] a

pre sum ption— but not ‘ a bla nk c h e c k’

— favoring thea dm i ssion of prope n sity

e vide nc e at both c ivil a

nd c rim ina l tria ls involving ch a rge s of se xua l
3m isc o nduc t” ). Thus, W e be r’ s a rgum e nts tha

t Le May ’ s fa c t or ana ly sis is unsound
are unava iling. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting the prope nsity
e vide nc e in this c a se . “ A distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings a re re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Thornhill , 940 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th C ir. 2019). It is a ppa re n t from the re c ord tha

t the distric t c o urt c onduc te d the prope r R

ule 403 ba la nc ing in de te rm ining whe the r to a d m it the R ule 414 e vide n c e . For e xam ple , the d istric t c o urt only

a llowe d som e of the ava ila ble prope nsity e vide nc e
— one witne s s to te s tify

a bout e a c h ty

pe of a s sa ult c ha rge d— that it de te rm ine d wa s m ost
re le va nt to thec ha

rge d c onduc t . Furthe rm ore , the c ourt a ppropria te ly we ighe d the Le May fa c tors in a d

m itting the e vide nc e . Thus, be c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination wa s ne i the r “ illogic a l ,”

“ im pla usible ,” nor “ without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord,” it did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting this prope nsity e vide nc e . Pe rry v . Brow n , 667 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th C i r. 2012) (c le ane d up) (quoting Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc )). AFFIRM E D.

4