Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John LESTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 164 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 05-30187
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John LESTER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John LESTER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-30187.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 27, 2006.
Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
Norman McIntosh Barbosa, Esq., Kelly L. Harris, Esq., Seattle, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Ronald D. Ness, Esq., Port Orchard, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Consuelo Marshall, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Relying on United, States v. Merino-Balderrama, 146 F.3d 758, 762-63 (9th Cir.1998), John Lester argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence twenty photographs of child pornography, despite his offer to stipulate that the photographs depicted child pornography. However, unlike in Merino-Balderrama, in this case there was evidence that Lester looked at the images of child pornography that he was charged with possessing; no satisfactory evidentiary alternative for the images existed; the images had probative value in multiple ways; and the district court took precautions to prevent unfair prejudice. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Hay, 231 F.3d 630, 638-39 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.