Case Name: Henrietta BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Treasury; United States Internal Revenue Service; Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-16
Citations: 340 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 07-35557
Parties: Henrietta BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Treasury; United States Internal Revenue Service; Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GRABER, FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Henrietta BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Treasury; United States Internal Revenue Service; Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-35557.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 3, 2009.
Filed June 16, 2009.
See also, 567 F.3d 1038.
Beth Ann Creighton, Esquire, Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Later & Rose, Thomas M. Steenson, Esquire, Steenson, Schumann, Tewksbury, Creighton & Rose, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GRABER, FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Timothy F. Geithner is substituted for his predecessor, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., as Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
Henrietta Browning appeals the district court's rulings limiting the evidence she was allowed to present in her racial discrimination claim against the government. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court appropriately exercised its considerable discretion in excluding testimony that the court reasonably found could have allocated trial time inefficiently. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 688, 690 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, Browning has not shown that the alleged error "more probably than not" tainted the jury's verdict, because much of the testimony that Browning contends was inappropriately excluded was actually presented at trial. Id. at 688.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Browning also appeals the district court's refusal to give a permissive jury instruction regarding pretext, which we address in a concurrently filed published opinion.