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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. THOM AS R . HAZELRIGG, III, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30071

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00239-TSZ-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s S. Zilly , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 9, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : EB EL, ** PAEZ, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Thom a s Ha z e lrigg III a

ppe a ls a judgm e nt of c o nvic tion, e nte re d a fte r a jury tria l , on two c ounts of willfully atte m pting to e va de or de fe at

taxe s in viola

tion of 26 U.S.C . § 7201. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUN 22 2016 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 Honora

ble David M . Ebe l , Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.1. Ha z e lrigg a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt a dm i tte d e vide nc e of his la vish living tha t wa s irre le va

nt, unduly

pre judic ia l, a nd viola tive of due proc e ss. He a lso argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt a dm itte d e vide nc e in viola tion of Fe d e ra l R

u le of Evide n c e 404(b). At trial, Ha z e lrigg obje c t e d only to photogra phs of theB e lle vue c ondom i nium , a

nd only on re le va nc e grounds. W e the re fore re vie w Ha z e lrigg’ s re le va nc e c ha lle n ge to theB e lle vue c ondom inium photogra phs for a buse of disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Stinson , 647 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th C ir. 2011). His re m a ining c ha l le nge s a

re re vie w e d for pla i n e rror. Se eUnite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Unde r that sta nda rd, re ve rsa l is re quire d only if the a dm ission of e vide nc e wa s pla inly e rrone ous, a ffe c te d Ha z e lrigg’ s substa ntia l rights, a n d unde rm ine d the i nte grity of the proc e e d ings. S

e e id. at 732. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting photogra phs of the B e lle vue c ondom i nium . Evide nc e tha t Ha z e lrigg spe nt signific ant sum s from nom ine e a c c o unts on nom ine e prope rtie s , inc luding theB e lle vue c ondom i nium , wa s re le va nt to show his a

bility to pa y his ta x indebte dne ss a

nd his a ffirm ative atte m

pts to de fe at c olle c tion. Se eSpie s v . Unite d State

s , 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943) (e xpla ining tha t a wide range of c onduc t m ay give rise to a

n infe re nc e of willful a

tte m pt to de fe at a

nd e va de taxe s, inc luding the “ c onc e a l m e nt of a sse ts or c ove ring up sourc e s of inc om e , ha ndling of one ’ s a ffa irs to a void m aking the 2re c o rds usua l in tra n sa c tions of thekind, a

nd a ny c onduc t, the like ly

e ffe c t of whic h would beto m isle a d or to c onc e a l” ); se ealso United State s v . C arlson , 235 F.3d 466, 468-49 (9th C ir. 2000). M ore ove r, the B e lle vue c ondom i nium wa s one of se v e ra l nom ine e prope rtie s the gove rnm e nt showe d Ha z e lrigg c ontrolle d through stra

w owne rs. The gove rnm e nt prope rly use d photogra

phs of the re side nc e to he lp the jury ke e p the prope rtie s stra ight a nd to te l l a

c o m pre he nsible story . Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 401 advisory c om m i tte e ’ s note (inc luding “vie w s of re a l e sta te ” am ong e xam

ple s of e vide nc e re gula

rly a dm itte d to a id unde rsta

nding). 3. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it re ve rsible pla in e rror in a d m itting the o the r “ lavish living”

e vide nc e , to whic h no obje c tion wa s m a de . Se eOlano , 507 U.S. a

t 732. First, its a dm ission wa s not a pla inly e rrone o us a

pplic ation of the fe de ra l rule s gove rning re le va

nc e . As disc usse d a

bove , e vide nc e of Ha z e lrigg’ s spe nding from nom ine e a c c o unts on nom ine e prope rtie s gave rise to a n infe re nc e of willful e va sion, se eSpie

s , 317 U.S. a

t 499; C arlson , 235 F.3d a

t 468-69, a

nd wa s the re fore a dm issiblebe c a

use it te nde d

to prove a

fa c t of c onse q

ue nc e , s e e Fe d. R . Evid. 401, 402; c f. Unite d State

s v . Sc holl , 166 F.3d 964, 975 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha t prose c utor’ s que stions a

bout de fe nda

nt’ s two house s, tim e sha re in Ha wa ii, a nd

3golf c lub m e m be rship e lic ite d te stim ony tha t “ [a ] lthough margina l,” wa s none the l e ss proba

tive of the de fe nda

nt’ s de fe nse ). Se c ond, it is not obvious tha t a dm ission of the

e vide n c e wa s unduly pre j udic i a l, be c a

use the gove rnm e nt m ostly tie d e vide n c e of Ha z e l rigg’ s spe nding to his useof the nom ine e a c c ounts a nd prope rtie s. Se eUnite d State s v . Unruh , 855 F.2d 1363, 1377 (9th C ir. 1987) (a dm onishing tha t e v ide nc e of a

de fe nda nt’ s we a lth “ should not be

offe re d unle ss c le arly

c onne c te d” to thespe c ific c ha rge s or c onduc t at issue ); se ealso United State s v . K e ssi , 868 F.2d 1097, 1106-07 (9th C ir. 1989). Haz e lrigg m ak e s m uc h of the pote ntia l pre

judic e arising from

the gove rnm e nt’ s use of photogra phs. B ut the photogra

phs we re not m isle a ding, did not ha ve “ a visc e ra l im

pa c t tha t fa r e xc e e ds the ir proba

tive va lue ,” we re not like ly to “ arouse irrationa l fe ars a nd pre judic e s,” and did not “

m a [k] e the diffe re nc e be twe e n a c quitta l a

nd c onvic t ion.” Unite d State s v . Hitt , 981 F.2d 422, 424-25 (9th C ir. 1992). Third, thea dm ission of re le va nt e vide nc e wa s not plainly a viola tion of Ha z e lrigg’ s due proc e ss right to a fa ir tria l. Se eUnite d State s v . Soc ony -Vac uum Oil C o. , 310 U.S. 150, 240 (1940) (re c ogniz ing tha t a ppe a ls to c la ss pre

judic e m ay

“ so poison the

m inds of jurors . . . tha

t an a c c use d m ay

be de prive d of a

fa ir tria l” ). As Ha z e l rigg c onc e de s, the gove rnm e nt m a de no re fe re nc e s to Haz e lrigg’ s la vish 4living in c losing a rgum e nt, le t a lone the “ undignifie d a nd inte m pe rat e ” “ a ppe a ls to c la ss pre j udic e ” pre se nt in Soc ony -Vac uum Oil C o. , 310 U.S. a

t 239. Inde e d, it wa s Haze lrigg ’ s la

wy e r— not thegove rnm e nt—

who told the

jury in c losing, “ The im a ge of [Ha z e lrigg] sitting in a hot tub with a

big gla ss of c ham

pa g ne la ughing m anic a l ly a s he rolls [a ] hundre d dolla rs in his fingers, that is probably pre tty ac c urate ” (e m

pha sis a d d e d). Eve n if we a s sum e d, howe ve r, tha t the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d in a dm itting c e rta in of the“ lavish living” e vide nc e , unde r our de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re vie w, re ve rsa l would not be wa rrante d. S

e eOlano , 507 U.S. a

t 734. Haz e lrigg ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t his substa

ntia l rights we re a ffe c t e d in light of the c onside ra ble e v ide nc e tha

t he orde re d his fina

nc i a l a ffa i rs to e va de c re d itors, the Inte rna l R e ve nue Se rvic e am ong the m . Se eSpie s , 317 U.S. a

t 499 (“ If the taxe va sion m otive pla

y s a ny pa rt in . . . [c onduc t whic h m isle a ds or c onc e a ls,] the offe nse m ay

be m a de out e v e n though the c onduc t m ay a lso se rve othe r purpose s . . . .” ). 4. Fina lly , it wa s not a pla inly e rrone ous a

p plic ation of Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide n c e 404(b) for the distric t c ourt to a dm it e vide nc e de m onstra t ing tha t Ha z e lrigg c onc e a le d his c ontrol of theR e dm ond re side nc e during theIR S c olle c tion pe riod but subse que ntly he ld him se lf out a s the owne r. B e c a use this 5e vide nc e wa s intrinsic to the c ha rge d offe nse and “ ‘ ne c e ssa ry to pe rm i t the prose c utor to offe r a

c ohe re nt a

nd c om p re he nsiblestory

re g a rding thec om

m ission of the c rim e ,’ ” it wa s “ e xe m pt from the re quire m e nts of R

ule 404(b).” U

nite d State s v . Ande r son , 741 F.3d 938, 949-50 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s v . Dorse y , 677 F.3d 944, 951 (9th C ir. 2012)). AFFIRM E D.

6