Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Colina ALIVIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 366 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 08-50489
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roy Colina ALIVIO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roy Colina ALIVIO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-50489.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 2010.
Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Darwin R. Thomas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michelle Anderson, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from a jury conviction of six counts of subscribing to a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The only issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony concerning defendant's gambling activities.
The gambling evidence was clearly relevant to the issues in the case under Feder al Rule of Evidence 401. The district court handled the evidence in a manner such that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.