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. EDWARD JAM ESON PURR Y II, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10579

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00332- JAD

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 18, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, TASHIM A, a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s . On four oc c a sions in 2013, Appe lla nt Edwa rd J. Purry

II purc ha s e d guns from B ig Gun Ente rprise s, LLC , a fe de ra l ly lic e nse d fire arm s de a le r ba se d in He nde rson, Ne va da . On e a c h of the se oc c a sions, Purry c om ple te d the re quisite 

# F IL ED
AUG 02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.Fire arm s Tran s a c tion R e c o rd, a lso known a s a Form 4473, on whic h he re pre se nte d that he re side d in Ne v a da
. Purry wa s indic t e d on four c ounts of viola ting 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a )(2) for ille ga l ly

a c quiring fire arm s. The indic tm e nt a lle ge d tha t Purry knowingly

m isre pre se nte d

his a ddre ss a

n d his sta t e of re side nc y

on the Form 4473s. A jury

c onvic te d Purry on a ll c ounts. Hewa s se nte nc e d to c onc urre nt te rm s of 102 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt. Purry now a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . First, Purry argue s tha t the gove rnm e nt viola

te d Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a nd Giglio v

. Unite d State s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972), by fa iling to disc lose , until shortly be fore tria l , e vide nc e of B ig Gun’ s own Form 4473 re porting viola

t ions. Se c ond, Purry
c ha lle nge s the suffic ie nc y of the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e . Third, Purry obje c ts to a
va rie ty of the distric t c o urt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings. Finally , Purry

c onte nds tha

t his
se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. W e re vie w a l le ge d Brady and G iglio viola tions denovo. Unite d State s v . W ilk e s , 662 F.3d 524, 534 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). A Brady

/ Giglio viola

tion ha s thre e e l e m e nts: “ (1) the e v ide nc e at issuem u st be favora

ble to the a c c use d, e ithe r be c a

use it is e xc ulpa

tory , or be c a

use it is im

pe a c hing; (2) tha

t
2e vide nc e m

ust ha ve be e n suppre sse d by

the State , e ithe r willfully or ina dve rte ntly ;
and (3) pre

j udic e m ust ha v e e nsue d.” Unite d State s v . K ohring , 637 F.3d 895, 901 (9th C ir. 2011). “ Evide nc e is pre j udic ia l . . . ‘ o nly

if the re is a

re a sona ble proba b ility tha t, ha d the e v ide nc e be e n disc lose d to the de fe nse , the re sult of the proc e e ding would ha

v e be e n diffe re nt.’ ” Id. at 902 (quoting Unite d State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). In turn, “ [t] he re is a ‘ re a sona ble proba bility ’ of pre j udic e whe n

suppre ssion of e vide nc e ‘ unde rm ine s c onfide nc e in the outc om e of the t ria l.’ ” Id. (quoting K

y le s v . W hitle y , 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)). Purry ’ s Brady

/ Giglio c l a im

turns on thegove rnm e nt’ s purporte d fa ilure tim e ly to disc lose the fa c t tha

t B ig Gun ha d itse lf be e n re prim a n de d by the B ure a

u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s a nd Explosive s for ina c c urate ly c om ple ting Form 4473s. Purry

argue s this e vide n c e would ha ve be e n both “ inde pe nde ntly
e xc ulpa tory ” an d va lua ble “ im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e .” W e are unpe rsua de d. Purry c onte nds this e vide n c e wa s e xc ulpa tory be c a use , ha d it be e n tim e ly

disc l ose d, he c ould ha

ve pursue d the the ory

tha t B ig Gun’ s own
e m ploy e e s we re instruc t ing purc ha se rs, like him , to c om ple te the Form

4473s inc o rre c t ly . Howe ve r, not e ve ry late disc losure give s rise to a B rady viola tion. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . W oodle y , 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th C ir. 1993) (re je c ting Brady c la im

whe re pote nt ia lly

e xc ulpa tory m ate ria l wa s disc l ose d shortly be fore
3and e ve n during trial). In fa c t, “ Brady d oe s not ne c e ssa

rily re q u ire tha t the prose c ution turn over e xc ulpa tory m ate ria l be

fore tria l.” Unite d State

s v . Aic he le , 941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th C ir. 1991) (c ita tion omitte d). R athe r, the re le va nt inquiry is whe the r the disc l o sure , whe n m a de , wa s still of value to the a c c use d. Se e id. He re , Purry re pe ate dly

sought to use the e vide nc e at tria l, whic h c onfirm s tha t the
e vide nc e re m a i ne d of va lue to Purry , de spite its la te disc losure
. 1 This is e nough to de fe at his Brady c la im
. Id. Purry a lso a rgue s tha t e vide nc e of B ig Gun’ s re porting viola tions would have e n a b le d him to im

pe a c h the te stim ony

of B ig Gun’ s owne r Gina Alle n, who la id the founda

tion for a d

m ission of the

Form 4473s a s busine ss re c ords unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 803(6). Eve n a ssum ing, without de c iding, tha t this
e vide nc e would ha

ve unde rm i n e d Alle n’ s te stim ony , a ny re sulting error is ha rm le s s be c a

use the c ourt m a de c le ar that , in the a lte rnative , the Form 4473s we re
a dm issibleunde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 801(d)(2), a s sta t e m e nts by

a pa rty oppone nt. Ac c ordingly , Purry ’ s Giglio c ha lle nge like wise fa ils.

1 To be sure , the distric t c o urt re fuse d to a llow Purry to a c t ua lly use the e vide nc e at

tria l, e xpla ining tha

t the e vide nc e wa s irre le va nt a n d unduly pre judic ia l unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of Evide nc e 403. B ut this is im m ate ria l for purpose s of Brady
. What m atte rs is tha

t , de spite the late disc l osure , Purry re c e ive d the e vide nc e from the g ove rnm e nt with suffic ie nt tim e to utiliz e it a t tria l . Tha

t the c ourt the n e xc lude d the e vide nc e on unre late d grounds doe s not c ha nge this fa c t. 42. W e re vie w a suffic ie nc y of the e v ide nc e c ha lle nge de novo. S e e Unite d State s v . Tuc k e r , 641 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th C ir. 2011). In so doing, we
c onstrue “ the e vide nc e pre se nte d a ga inst thede fe nda nt in thelight most fa

vora ble to the gove rnm e nt

to de te rm ine whe the r any rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” Unite d State

s v . Somsamouth , 352 F.3d 1271, 1274–75 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gonzale z-Torre s , 309 F.3d 594, 598 (9th C ir. 2002)). The offe nse of whic h Purry wa s c onvic te d

re quire s tha

t (1) a de fe n da nt knowingly , (2) m a

ke a fa lse sta te m e nt, (3) in c onne c tion with the a c quisition of a fire arm , (4) tha

t re late s to fa c ts m ate ria l to the le ga lity of the fire arm sa le
. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(6). Purry c onte nds tha

t “ [t] he gove rnm e nt fa i le d to pre se nt suffic i e nt e vide nc e tha

t [he ] knowingly

and fa lse ly

sta te d he re side d in Ne va da

and that [his] sta t e m e nts a bout his a ddre ss a

nd sta te of re side nc e we re m ate ria l to the fire arm sa le s.” B oth of the s e argum e nts fa il. First, Purry ’ s own sta te m e nts tha

t he live d in Oakla nd, C a l ifornia

– m a de to la

w e n forc e m e nt a

nd re pe ate d

on his a pplic ations to obta in a c onc e a le d we a

pons pe rm it, a

n ide ntific at ion c ard, a

nd a UPS m a i l box – provide a suffic i e nt ba sis for c onc luding tha t his repre se ntations to the c ontra ry on the Form 4473s we re fa lse . Se c ond, Purry ’ s m ate ria l ity argum e nt fa i ls unde r the
5logic of Abramsk i v . Unite d State

s , 134 S.C t. 2259, 2273 (2014), in whic h the C ourt he ld tha

t inform ation on a

Form 4473 is m ate ria l if the de a l e r’ s knowle dge of its fa lsity

would re n de r the sa le unla w ful. Tha

t is thec a se he re : ha d B ig Gun known Purry wa s m isre pre se nting his sta te of re s ide nc e , the sa le would ha v e be e n unla wful. Ac c ordingly , we de ny

Purry ’ s suffic ie nc y

of the e vide nc e c ha lle nge . 3. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to e xc lude e vide nc e unde r R ule s 403 a

nd 404(b) for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Vo , 413 F.3d 1010, 1017 &

n.4 (9th C ir. 2005). A distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for a
m istria l is like wise re vie we d for a buse of disc re tion. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Le mus , 847 F.3d 1016, 1024 (9th C ir. 2016). Fina l ly , we c onside r de novo a distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of a

C onfronta

tion C la use c la im
. Se e Unite d State s v . C a zare s , 788 F.3d 956, 972 (9th C ir. 2015).

A. Purry ’ s first e vide ntia ry obje c tion ta

ke s issuewith the
a dm ission of “ e vide nc e indic ating he shippe d fire arm s from Ne va da to C a lifornia .” Prior to tria l, Purry

unsuc c e ssfully sought to e x c l ude the e vide nc e via a m o tion in lim ine . During tria l, Purry m ove d, a g a i n unsuc c e s sfully , for a m istria l on thesa

m e issue
. The distric t c ourt a dm itte d the e vide nc e be c a use it te nde d to show tha

t Purry
wa s not a re side nt of Ne va da , whic h wa s proba tive of a n e le m e nt of the c ha

rge d
6offe nse . B e c a use this e vide nc e c orroborate d othe r e vide nc e a s to Purry ’ s sta te of
re side nc e , a s we ll a s Purry ’ s m otive for m aking fa lse sta te m e nts, we c annot find the c ourt’ s ruling to be

an a buse of disc re tion. B . Purry

ne xt c ha lle nge s the e ffic a c y of the distric t c ourt’ s lim iting instruc tion a s it re lat e s to e vide nc e tha t Purry use d the a lia s “ Ke nny C lutc h.” This
argum e nt fa ils be c a

use “ our c ourt a ssum e s tha t the jury liste n e d to a nd followe d the t ria l judge ’ s instruc tions.” Unite d State s v . Esc alante , 637 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th C ir. 1980) (c ita

tion omi tte d). Se e also United State s v . Galle nardo , 579 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th C ir. 2009) (a ffirm ing de nia l of m otion for a m istria l be c a

use it is

“ pre sum e [d] tha

t the jury followe d the distric t

c o urt’ s lim iting instruc tion” ). B e c a use Purry ha s a dva

nc e d no re a son why

we should de

pa rt from this we lle sta blishe d princ iple in this c a se , we re je c t this a rgum e nt. C. Purry ’ s third e vide ntia ry obje c tion c onc e rns the c ourt’ s
a dm ission, over his obje c tion, of photogra phs de pic ting fire arm s tha t ha d be e n
se iz e d by the U.S. Posta l Se rvic e in C a l ifornia
. Purry c ha lle nge s the e v ide nc e a s unduly pre judic ia l unde r R

ule 403. W e c a

nnot a gre e . Se ve ra l fa c tors support
a ffirm ing the distric t c ourt. First, this is not a c a se whe re we a

p ons ha d no
c onne c tion to the

offe nse s c ha

rge d; rathe r, the c rux of the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se wa s that Purry wa s buy ing guns in Neva da to unla wfully ship the m

to C a lifornia
. 7Se c ond, the risk of unduepre j u dic e is furthe r re duc e d be c a use the fire arm s pic t ure d, while not theguns re fe re nc e d in theindic t m e nt, we re , ne v e rthe le ss,
a c tua lly shippe d by

Purry
. Fina lly , we a fford tria l c ourts “ w ide disc re tion” whe n
a pply ing “ the broa d c ontours of R ule 403[.] ” Unite d State

s v . Lay ton , 767 F.2d 549, 554 (9th C ir. 1985). Ac c ordingly , we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in this insta nc e . D. Purry ’ s ne xt e vide ntia ry c ha lle nge ta

ke s issuewith thedistric t
c ourt’ s a d m ission of e vide nc e – both photogra phic and te stim onia l – sugge sting that Purry posse s se d m ore guns tha n the fourte e n

c ha rge d in theindic tm e nt. Ac c ording to Purry , the distric t c ourt should ha ve grante d a

m istria l on this ba sis. W e disa gre e . Eve n a c c e pting Purry ’ s pre m ise tha t this e vide nc e wa s pre

judic i a l, we have he ld tha t “ [w] he re e vide n c e he ard by the jury is la te r rule d ina dm issible , a
c a utiona ry instruc tion is ordina

rily suffic ie nt to c ure any

a lle g e d pre

judic e to the de fe nda n t.” Unite d State

s v . C harmle y , 764 F.2d 675, 677 (9th C ir. 1985).

“ De c la ring a m istria l is a

ppropria te only whe re a c a

utiona ry instruc tion is unlike ly to c ure the pre

judic i a l e ffe c t

of a n e rror.” Id. He re , a fte r re c iting thec ha rge s in the indic tm e nt, the distric t c ourt instruc te d the jurors tha t “ [y ] ou a re he re only

to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the de fe nda

nt is guilty

or not guilty

of the c ha

rge s in the
8Indic tm e nt,” and tha t “ [t] he de fe nda

nt is not on tria

l for a ny c onduc t or offe nse not
c ha rge d in theIndic tm e nt.” This instruc tion wa s suffic ie nt to ove rc om e any pre j udic e re sulting from

the c ha lle n ge d e vide nc e . Ac c ordingly , we de ny Purry ’ s fourth e vide ntia

ry c ha lle nge . E . Purry ’ s fina l e vide ntia ry obje c tion c ha l le nge s the distric t
c ourt’ s a d m ission of e vide nc e re lating to Da n Tillm an, the B i g Gun e m ploy e e who pa rtia l ly c om ple te d som e o f the Form

4473s a t issuein this c a se . Purry c onte nds that be c a u se he ne ve r ha d a

n opportunity

to c ross-e xam ine Tillm an, the a dm ission of this e v ide nc e viola

te d the Sixth Am e n dm e nt’ s C onfronta tion C la use . W e disa gre e . As to theForm 4473s the m se lve s, the y

are busine ss re c ords a

nd the re fore “ are ge ne ra lly

a dm issible a

bse nt c onfronta

tion.” Me le n de

z-Diaz v
. Massac huse tts , 557 U.S. 305, 324 (2009). Se e also United State s v . Bland

, 961 F.2d 123, 127 (9th C ir. 1992) (a dm itting Form 4473s a s busine ss re c o rds). Like wise , the c ha lle nge d te s tim ony a s to thesa

m e wa s not offe re d

for the truth of the m atte r a sse rte d
. Inste a d, it wa s offe re d to e xp la in why la w e nforc e m e nt de c ide d to follow up on Purry ’ s Form 4473s. Suc h

te stim ony

c annot giverise to a C onfronta

tion C la use c la im
. Se e C

raw ford v . W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004) (“ [The C o nfronta

tion C la use ] doe s not ba

r the use of te s tim o nia l sta t e m e nts for purpose s othe r tha

n e sta blishing the

truth of them atte r a sse rte d.” ).
94. W e re vie w the substa ntive re a s ona

b le ne ss of a

se nte nc e for a

buse of disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Aute ry , 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th C ir. 2009). Purry
wa s se nte nc e d to c onc urre nt te rm s of 102 m onths’ im prisonm e nt. The distric t
c ourt de te rm ine d Purry ’ s se nte nc e by c a lc ulating a guide l ine s ra n ge of 97 to 121
m onths, ba se d

on a n Adjuste d Offe nse Le v e l of 30 a n d a C rim ina l History C ate gory of I. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt im

p ose d a within guide line s se nte nc e and suffic i e ntly

e xpla ine d why

the se nte nc e a dopte d wa s a ppropria te , Purry ’ s se nte nc e
wa s substa

ntive ly re a sona ble
. S e e Unite d State

s v . Blink insop , 606 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [W ] he n a distric t judge im

pose s a se nte nc e within the Guide line s ra

nge , ‘ it is proba

b le tha t the se nte nc e is re a sona

ble ,’ be c a use the judge ’ s a p plic ation of the§ 3553(a ) fa c tors a c c o rds with theSe nte nc ing C om m ission’ s indep e nde nt a

pplic ation of those

fa c tors in the‘ m ine run of
c a se s.’ ” ).

AFFIRM E D.

10