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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ARLOS INC LAN, JR .,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-10209 D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00057-R

FB -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 Ne v a da R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re II, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 11, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, GR

AB E R , a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . The Unite d State s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s pre tria l orde r e x c luding c e rta in
e vide nc e tha

t is intende d to show De fe nda nt C arlos Inc la

n, Jr.’ s knowle dge of the
c onte nt of ha

rd drive s found in his room . W e have jurisdic t ion, 18 U.S.C . § 3731,
and we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED
JUL 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in e xc luding a ll the " dom inion e vide nc e ," on the

ground tha

t the e vide nc e ha d

not be e n disc lose d pursua nt to a n e arlie r pre t

ria l orde r. The prior orde r wa s m a d e in re sponse to a de fe nse re q ue st for a bill of pa rtic u la rs of a lle g e dly pornogra

phic im a ge s, whic h the dispute d e vide n c e is not. 2. The distric t c ourt e xc lude d the e v ide nc e on the a d ditiona l ground tha t it is not re le va nt within the m e an ing of R ule 401 of theFe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e . Whe the r we re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion or de novo, Unite d State s v. Fry

be rg, 854 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th C ir. 2017), thedistric t c ourt’ s ruling c annot be susta ine d on this the ory . The e x iste n c e of the dom i nion e vide nc e on the loose ha rd drive s in De fe nda nt’ s room te nds to provetha

t he posse sse d a

nd kne w the c onte nt of those ha rd drive s. Se e Unite d

State s v. Fe de ric o, 658 F.2d 1337, 1342 n.5 (9th C i r. 1981) (" R e le va

nc e is e sta

blishe d by

any showing, howeve r slight, whic h m ake s it
m ore like ly

tha n it wa s be fore the a dm ission of the e vide nc e tha

t the de fe nda

nt
c om m itte d the c rim e in que stion." ), ove rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v. De B right, 730 F.2d 1255, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1984) (e n ba nc ). De fe nda

nt’ s knowle dge tha

t he posse sse d c hild pornogra p hy is a n e l e m e nt of the c rim e c ha rge d. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(5)(B ). The we ight of thee vide n c e is for a trie r of fa c t to de c ide
.

23. The c ourt’ s fina l re a son for e xc luding thee vide nc e wa s tha t, unde r R ule 403, the probative va lue of the e vide n c e is substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by

its te nde nc y to pre judic e De fe nda

nt unfa irly . W e re v ie w for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v. Ha isc he r, 780 F.3d 1277, 1281 (9th C ir. 2015). W ith re spe c t to two photogra

p hs showing De fe nda

nt with a c hild, we find no a

buse of disc re tion. B ut with re spe c t to theothe r e vide nc e in que s tion, c o nsisting of em a i ls a nd im a ge s that do not inc lude c hildre n, we c onc lude tha t the e xc lusion of the

e vide n c e is unjustifie d unde r R

u l e 403 be c a

use the re is no unfa i r pre

judic e . The gove rnm e nt sugge sts tha t the two photogra

phs of De fe n da

nt with a c hild
c an be c roppe d to a

void showing the

c hild. B ut the distric t c ourt ha s ha d no opportunity

to vie w the propose d c roppe d im a ge s, a nd it should ha

ve the first opportunity

to e v a luate the m

if the gove rnm e nt wishe s to offe r the m . 4. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not addre s s De fe nda nt’ s othe r argum e nts for e x c lusion of the

dom inion e vide n c e , we de c line to do so in the first insta nc e . AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t; RE M ANDE D.

3