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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C OLIN LOVETTE B OSB Y, AKA C olin B osby , AKA C o lin L. B osby , AKA C o lin Love tt B osby , AKA C olin Love tte e B osby , AKA JSm ile y , AKA Sm ile y ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10532

D.C . No. 1:16-c r-00171-LJO-SKO-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 Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd R AW LINSON, C irc u i t Judge s. C olin Love tte B osby

a ppe a ls his c onvic t ion on onec ount of re c e iving or distributing child pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a)(2), and two



# FIL ED MAR 04 2019 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 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).c ounts of posse ssing c h i ld pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a)(4)(B ). He c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a d m i tting e vide nc e tha

t he posse sse d
c hild pornogra

phy on two other oc c a sions. Thefirst oc c a s ion wa s in 2003, 13 y e ars be fore the c onduc t c ha rge d in this c a se , a

nd the se c o nd in Oc tobe r 2016, two
m onths a fte r. His a

rgum e nt is tha

t the first wa s too e arly

and the se c ond too la

te . Evide nc e tha

t B osby posse sse d c hild pornogra phy in 2003 a nd in Oc tobe r 2016 is e vide nc e of “ c hild m ole sta tion,” m aking it a dm i ssible in this “ c a se on a ny
m atte r to whic h it is re le v a nt,” provide d its proba

tive va lue outwe ighs its pote ntia l to c a use undue pre

judic e . Fe d. R . Evid. 414(a); se e also United State s v . She ldon , 755 F.3d 1047, 1050–51 (9th C ir. 2014). That B osby ’ s posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy in 2003 pre c e de d the c ha rge d
c onduc t by

13 y e ars doe s not pre c lude a dm issibility
. Se e Unite d State s v . Rude , 88 F.3d 1538, 1550 (9th C ir. 1996) (the re is no “ bright linerule ” pre c luding re m ote
e vide nc e ) (c ita

t i on om i tte d); U

n ite d State

s v . Le M ay , 260 F.3d 1018, 1029 (9th C ir. 2001) (a dm itting unc ha

rge d a c ts from 11 y e ars prior). As to thee vide nc e of posse ssion in Oc tobe r 2016, two months a fte r the
c ha rge d c onduc t, the re is no ruleor re a s on to ha ve pre c lude d it. Although
c olloquia lly

te rm e d “prior ba d a c t e vide n c e , ” R ule 414 is title d “ Sim ila

r C rim e s in C hild-M ole sta

tion C a se s,” and provide s tha t “ the c ourt m ay

a dm i t e vide nc e tha

t
2the d e fe nda

nt c om m itte d a ny othe r c hild m ole sta

t ion.” Fe d. R . Evid. 414(a). W e have ne ve r lim ite d this rule to pa st c onduc t. Se e also United State s v . Lloy d, 807 F.3d 1128, 1157–58 (9th C i r. 2015) (noting in the m ore re stric tive R

ule 404(b)
c onte xt tha

t “ [e ] vide nc e of a

subse que nt ba d a c t is a d

m issible ” ) (c i tations omitte d); Unite d State s v . Sioux , 362 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t subse q ue nt a c ts e v ide nc e is pe rm issibleunde r Fe d e ra l R u le of Evide nc e 413). AFFIRM E D.

3