1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1311

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff – Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern District * of Missouri. Warren McKinney, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant – Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 2009 Filed: September 29, 2009

___________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Warren McKinney guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), and three counts of transportation of a minor for purpose of a criminal sex act in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). The district court 1 sentenced him to life imprisonment on the former and thirty years' imprisonment on the latter, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.2 In his opening brief, McKinney indicat ed he was also challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. He, however, failed to make any argument on this point, and thus has abandoned the issue. SeeUnited States v. Aldridge , 561 F.3d 759, 765 (8th Cir. 2009) ("Because the brief does not support this assertion with any argument, this court deems the issue abandoned.") (collecting cases). -2- Although McKinney was charged with se xually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter, there was testimony attrial related to other victims. Such evidence is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 414(a). In relevant part, McKinney's sisters, Dora McCullen, Mamie McKinne y, and Debbie Deadmond, testified that McKinney's daughter, KM, had a conversation with Mamie. After this conversation, the sisters decided to confront McKinney about molesting KM. When confronted, McKinney admitted molesting KM. McKi nney appeals the admission of testimony relating to the conversation between Mamie and KM. 2

We review a district court' s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lucas , 521 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2008). We be gin by noting the district court did not allow testimony directly stating the content of the conversation between Mamie and KM, although arguably the content of the conversation was implicitly revealed. To the extent it was admitted into evidence, the conversation was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to make McKinney's admission to molesting KM complete and intelligible. SeeUnited States v. King , 351 F.3d 859, 865 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Stelten , 867 F.2d 453, 454 (8th Cir. 1988). Further, even if KM's statement that McKinney molested her was offered for the truth, McKinney adopted it by admitting to molesting her, so this statement is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(B). See King , 351 F.3d at 865.

Admission of this evidence wa s not unfairly prejudicial. It is true that Rule 414(a) evidence is subject to Rule 403's ba lancing test. United States v. Summage , ---F.3d---, 2009 WL 2341856, at *9 (8th Cir. Ju ly 31, 2009); United States v. Bentley , 561 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 2009). Howe ver, "[b]ecause propensity evidence is-3- admissible under Rule 414, the fact that evidence of prior acts suggests a propensity to molest children, is not unfairprejudice." Summage , 2009 WL 2341856, at *9 (emphasis in original). We therefore fi nd its admission was not unfairly prejudicial.

We affirm the district court.

______________________________