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. TODD R USSELL FR IES, AKA Todd B urns, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10654

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-01751-C KJC RP-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 Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d R AW LINSON, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd GAR B IS, Se nior Distric t Judge . ** Appe lla nt Todd R

usse ll Frie s (Frie s) c ha lle n ge s his c onvic t ions for unla wful posse s sion of unre giste re d de struc tive de vic e s in viola tion of 26 U.S.C . § 5861(d). 

# FIL ED AUG 10 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M arvin J. Ga

rbis, Se nior Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M ary l an d, sitting by de signa t ion.Frie s c onte nds tha t a ne w tria l is wa

rrante d be c a

use : the distric t c ourt im

p rope rly a dm itte d an e xc e rpt from

a book se iz e d from

Frie s’ re side nc e tha

t disc usse d de signs for de struc tive de vic e s; the distric t c o urt e rre d in pre c l uding e vide nc e and c ross-e xam ination in support of Frie s’ de fe nse the ory tha t he did not m anufa c ture the d e vic e s a s c onte m

plate d by the Inte rna l R e ve nue C ode ; the distric t c ourt fa ile d to a n swe r suffic ie ntly

the jury ’ s que stions; the

distric t c ourt e rre d

in instruc ting the jury tha t the gove rnm e nt wa s not re quire d to provetha t Frie s kne w tha

t posse ssion of the unre g iste re d de vic e s wa s ille ga l; a n d the prose c ution e nga ge d in m isc onduc t during c losing a

rgum e nts. W e a ffirm

Frie s’ c onvic tions. 1 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly a dm itte d the e xc e rpt from the book se iz e d at Frie s’ re side nc e a s re le va nt e vide nc e a fte r de t e rm i ning tha t the book’ s

“ pote ntia lly

pre judic ia l e ffe c t did not substa nt ia lly outwe igh its proba

tive va lue ” give n its “ c onne c tion to the c rim e with whic h [Frie s] wa s c ha rge d .” Unite d State

s v . C urtin , 489 F.3d 935, 959 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba n c ).
2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly e xc lude d e vide nc e and c ross-e xam ination pre m ise d on Frie s’ proffe re d de fe nse the o ry from the Inte rna l R e ve nue C ode a s

1 Frie s a lso a sse rts tha

t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in de ny i ng his m otion to suppre ss. Howe ve r, we a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Frie s’ m o tion in a prior a ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Frie s , 781 F.3d 1137, 1150-51 (9th C ir. 2015). 2irre le va

nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Boulw are , 558 F.3d 971, 974 (9th C i r. 2009) (artic ulating tha

t “ a tria l c ourt m ay

pre c lude a

de fe nse the o ry whe re the e v i de nc e , a s de sc ribe d in thede fe nda nt’ s offe r of proof, is insuffic ie nt a s a m atte r of la

w to support theproffe re d de fe nse ” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d); se e also United State

s v . Re d lightning , 624 F.3d 1090, 1117 (9th C ir. 2010) (a ffirm ing the d istric t c o urt’ s e xc lusion of e vide n c e in support of a n irre l e va nt de fe nse the o ry ). In a

ny e ve nt, a ny e rror in e xc luding e vide n c e in support of Frie s’ proffe re d tax re gistra

t ion de fe nse wa s “ ha

rm le ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt” be c a use the c h arge s we re pre m ise d only on Frie s ’ posse ssion of unre giste re d de struc tive de vic e s. U

n ite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z , 766 F.3d 970, 981 (9th C ir. 2014), as ame nde d . 3. The distric t c ourt a de quate ly re sponde d to thejury ’ s que s tions c onc e rning theissua

nc e of a se arc h wa

rrant a nd im provise d e xplosivede vic e s. Se e Unite d State s v . Ve rduzc o , 373 F.3d 1022, 1031-32 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining tha t re sponse to a

jury que s tion is a

p propria te if it sta t e s the la w a c c urate ly , doe s not inte rfe re with thejury ’ s fa c tfinding proc e s s, a nd doe s not e xc e e d the sc ope of the que stion).

34. The distric t c ourt prope rly instruc te d the jury that the gove rnm e nt wa s not re quire d to proveFrie s kne w posse s sion of theunre giste re d de struc tive de vic e s wa s ille ga l. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Summe rs , 268 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th C i r. 2001) (holding tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s not re quire d to provetha t the de fe nda

nt kne w a fire arm wa s ille ga l unde r 18 U.S.C . § 5861(d)).

5. The prose c utor’ s c om m e nts during c losing a

rgum e nts a

nd in re butta l we re e ithe r supporte d by

re a sona ble infe re nc e s from

the e v ide nc e or did not c onstitute re ve rsible e rror. S

e eUnite d State

s v . W e i Lin , 738 F.3d 1082, 1085 n.2 (9th C ir. 2013) (e xpla ining tha t “ [p] rose c utors a

re pe rm itte d to a

rgue re a sona

ble infe re n c e s ba se d on thee vide nc e , whic h is a ll the prose c utor did he re ” ) (c i tation and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks omitte d); se ealso United State s v . Ruiz , 710 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th C ir. 2013) (a rtic ulating tha

t “ [u] nde r harm le ss e rror re vie w , c la im s of prose c utoria l m isc o n duc t are vie we d in thee ntire c onte xt of thetria l, a nd re ve rsa l is justifie d only if it a ppe ars m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t prose c utoria l m isc o nduc t m ate ria lly a ffe c te d the fa irne ss of thetria l” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

4