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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JASEN LYNN DUSHANE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10257

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00476-TLN-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and IKUTA a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ja se n DuSha

ne a ppe a ls his thre e -c ount c onvic tion im pose d a fte r a jury tria l in the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 and a ffirm . 

# FIL ED NOV 20 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to the gove rnm e nt, se e J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), a rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould find the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of posse ssion of stolen m a il, a c c e ss de vic e fra ud, a nd a ggrav at e d ide ntity

the ft be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt. B a se d on W e ntz loff’ s te stim ony , whic h the jury wa s e ntitle d to c re dit, se e Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th C ir. 2010), a re a sona ble jury c ould ha

ve found be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt tha

t DuSha n e knowingly

posse sse d stole n m a il, se e18 U.S.C . § 1708. A re a sona

ble jury c ould a lso ha

ve c onc lude d tha

t DuSha ne knowingly posse s se d m ore tha

n 15 usa b le a c c e ss de v i c e s, se e 18 U.S.C . § 1029(a)(3), ba se d on e vide n c e tha

t DuSha n e ha d obta ine d 26 full c re dit c ard a c c ount num be rs, Unite d State s v . Ony e soh , 674 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd on W e ntz loff’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding DuSha

n e ’ s subse q

ue nt use of the s e num

be rs. B e c a use DuSha

ne ’ s c ha lle nge to his c onvic tion of a c c e ss de vic e fra ud fa ils, his c ha lle nge to his c onvic tion on a ggravate d ide ntity the ft unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1028A(a )(1) a lso fa i ls. B e c a use Jury Instruc tion 22 identifie d only one of the two vic tim s na m e d in the i ndic t m e nt, it na

rrowe d the indic tm e nt rathe r tha n broa d e ning it. There fore , the om i ssion did not c onstruc tive l y am e nd C ount 3. Se eUnite d State s v . W ard, 747 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th C ir. 2014); Unite d State s v . W ilbur , 674 F.3d 1160, 1178 (9th 2C ir. 2012). Although the jury instruc tions did not inc l ude a date , unlikethe indic tm e nt, the only

e vide nc e introduc e d at tria l re ga rding theide ntifie d vic tim wa s gathe re d a fte r DuSha

ne ’ s a rre st on tha

t da te . The re fore , the om ission wa s not m ate ria l . Se e W

ard, 747 F.3d a

t 1189–90. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting e vide nc e re ga rding DuSha ne ’ s prior a

rre st a nd c onvic tion in a

sim ila r ide nt ity fra ud sc he m e be c a

use that e vide nc e te nde d to show tha t he inte nde d to de fraud the vic tim s at issuehe re . Se e Fe d. R . Evid 404(b); se ealso Unite d State s v . Flore s-Blanc o , 623 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C i r. 2010). Thec ourt ga v e lim iting instruc tions both a fte r the introduc tion of thee vide nc e and at the c onc lusion of trial, a nd did not a

buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t the probative va lue of this e vide nc e wa s not substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by

a risk of unfa ir pre

judic e . Fe d. R . Evid. 403; FloresBlanc o , 623 F.3d a

t 920. W e re je c t DuSha

n e ’ s c la im

tha t the distric t

c o urt a buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing his motion for a

c ontinua nc e one we e k be fore tria l be c a use DuSha

ne fa ile d to show pre

j u dic e from

the de nia l. Se eUnite d State s v . Riv e ra-Gue rre ro , 426 F.3d 1130, 1142 (9th C ir. 2005). DuSha ne issue d subpoe na s to a ll but oneof his de sire d witne sse s, a

nd ha s not ide ntifie d a

ny e vide nc e in the bla c k binde r that he would ha

ve use d. Nor did the

distric t c ourt a

b use its disc re tion in re solving 3DuSha

ne ’ s re que st for libra

ry a c c e s s, be c a

use the c ourt gra

nte d e ve ry re que st he m a de . AFFIRM E D .

4