Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael RIPPIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-20
Citations: 600 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 13-10615
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael RIPPIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and BENSON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael RIPPIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10615.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2015.
Filed April 20, 2015.
Eric Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Daniel D. Hollingsworth, Esquire, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S., Cristina D. Silva, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Heidi A. Ojeda, Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defend er’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and BENSON, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Dee V. Benson, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rippie appeals his jury conviction of possession of a firearm by a person previously committed to a mental institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), and making a false statement to acquire a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence regarding a state judge's refusal to return firearms to Appellant because of his prior commitment to a mental institution. Such evidence was unquestionably relevant to respond to Appellant's defense and posed no risk of unfair prejudice, particularly in light of the district court's thorough limiting instruction. The government's references to this testimony in closing argument did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct because they were consistent with the limiting instruction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.