F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 23, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble David M. Ebe l, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by * designation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1094 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00008 -CR- 01-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DAVID CHARLES W ILSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 3, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and E BE L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:2

Appellant David Charles W ilson , f orm er direc tor of the Oc m ulgee Regional L ibr ar y S y ste m ( O RL S) , appe al s hi s c onvi ct ionon f ive c ount s of

the ft und er 18 U . S. C. § 66 6( a) (1 )( A ) (C ount s 1 thr ough5) and o ne c ount of w itn es s tam

pe ri ng unde r 18 U . S. C. § 15 12( b) (1 ) (C ount 6) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed W ils on t o 48 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Onap pe al , W il so n ra is es sev eral is su es . Fi rs t, W ils on arg ue s th e ev ide nc e w as not suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s convictio n on Coun ts 1 throu gh 4. A fter r eviewing the rec ord, w e determine there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort W ils on’ s c onvi ct ionon the se c ount s. W e al so co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y on the a ppl ic ab ili ty

of § 666 (c). Se co nd, W ils on c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ex cl udi ng e vid en ce of Su e N ole s’ pr ior

c onvi ct ionf

or e m be zz le m en t. T o th e ex te nt W ils on s ough t t o us e the c onvi ct ionf

or im pe ac hm en t, it

w as pr ope rl y

e xc lud ed und er F ed . R. E vid . 609( b) . N ole s’ c onvi ct ionw as m or e than 10 y ears old , and W ils on f ai le d to sho w ex ce pti ona l c ir cum stanc es on the ba sis of whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have fo un d i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edit s p reju di ci al effe ct . See F ed . R. E vid . 609 (b ). F urthe r, the a dj udi catio n w as a lso pr ope rl y e xc lud ed und er F ed . R. E vid . 404 (b ) be ca

use W ils on s ough t t o us e N ole s’ pr ior c onvi ct ionto sugg es t3

that Noles, rather than W ilson , should have been sus pected of the alleged theft fro m th e ORLS. W ils on a lso c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e xc lus ionof N ole s’ pr ior co nvi ct ionvio late d hi s r igh t t o c onf ro ntatio n. W e fi nd this arg um en t t o be w ith out m erit. “ [T ] he Sixth Am endm ent onlyprotects cross-exam ination that is re le va nt .” Jo nes v . G oodw in , 9 8 2 F . 2 d4 6 4 , 4 6 9 ( 1 1 thC i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( e mp h a s i s i no r i g i n a l ) . “A tr ia l c ourt r et ai ns w ide latit ude ins of ar a s th e Co nf

ro ntatio n C lause is co nc er ne d to im pose r ea sona

ble li m its on s uc h c ro ss- ex aminatio n ba se d onc onc er ns a bout , am ong oth er

thi ngs, hara ssm en t, pr ej udi ce , c onf usi on o f the iss ue s, the w itn es s’ safety , or interrogation th at is repetitive or only m arginally

relevant. ” Francis v. Dugger , 908 F. 2d 69 6, 702 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation om itted). H ere, the district court foundthat evidence of N oles’ prior conviction had “ the potenti al of c onf usi ng the j ur

y in suc h m ea sur e as to outw ei gh the m ini m al pr obativ e va lue of the e vid en ce . ” W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt, and w e fi nd n o a buse of dis cr et ionin its de ci sio n to e xc lud e thi s e vid en ce . A lth oughW ils on s ugge sts the district court’ s evidentiary ruling prevented him

from question ing Noles about her po te nt ia l b ia s o r pr ejud ic e an d abo uthe r bo ok ke ep in g p ract ic es , we di sa gr ee. W ilson wa s free to pursue tho se are as of question ing to the extent they we re rel ev an t.In c onne c tio n w ithhis argume nt a bo ut t he Rul e 40 4(b) e vid e nc e , Wil so n a pp e ars to 1 challeng e the district cour t’s denial of his motion for a mistrial base d on a photograph inadver tently published to the jury

by one of the Gover

nment’s witnesses. To the e x tent Wil son appea ls the denial of his motion for mistrial, we re ject his argument. At trial, the Gove rnment withdrew the photogr aph in re sponse to Wil son’s objection, and the district court instructed the jury to disreg ard the photogr aph and a ny commentar

y related to it. W ilson has failed to show on appea l that the publication of the photograph to the jury was so highly

prejudicia l as to be incura ble by the trial cour

t’s admonition. Se eUn ite d S tates v . Truji llo , 1 46 F .3 d 8 38 , 8 45 (1 1th Cir. 1998). 4 Third, W ilson m aintains the dis trict court er red in adm itting under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence of withdraw als from the ORLS ’ s constituent library ac co un t s . We d et erm i n e t h e d i s tri ctco urtp ro p er l y ad m i t t edev i d en ce o f Wi l s o n ’s w ith dr aw al s f

ro m the c onst itu en t l ibr ar

y a cc ount s a s r el ev an t t o W ils on’ s st at e of m in d o r in te ntwith re sp ectto hi s wi th dr awal s fr om th e ORLS acc ou nt . See F ed . R. E vid . 404 (b ). F urthe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y on the perm issib le uses of this 40 4(b) evidence. 1 Fo urth, W ils on arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti ons fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on Co un ts 5 an d 6 . After r ev ie win g t he reco rd , we de te rmine the re w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort W ils on’ s c onvi ct ionon the se co unt s. La stly , W ilson challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. T he district court heard ar gum ent on the § 35 53(a) fa ctors, par ticularly on W ilson ’ s histo ry an d c hara ct er ist ic s, and s pe ci fi ca lly c onsi de re d and d isc uss ed c er ta in f ac tor s. T he5

district judge found there wa s no need to p rotect the public from any further pot en tia l c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty by W ils on o r to p ro vid e W ils on w ithany voc at ion al or ed uc at ion al tr ai nin g. H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f ound the re w as ane ed

f or de te rren ce an d t o i m

po se a se nt en ce t ha t re fle ct edth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se . In arr iving at a sentence of 48 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, the district court stated that the factors f

orm ed the prim ary

basis for its determ ination and that the sentence co in ci de nt al ly fell withi n t he advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th e se nt en ce was reas on ab le in li gh t o f § 3 55 3( a). See U nited Sta tes v. Sc ott , 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9- 30 ( 11 C ir . 200 5) ( hol din g th at an e xpl ic it ac kn o wl ed g m en tb y th e d i s tri ctco urtth ati th as co n s i d er edth e d ef en d an t ’s ar gum en ts and the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s su ff

ic es in post - Booker

sentences). AFFIRMED.