Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago Humberto RODRIGUEZ-APARICIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-16
Citations: 468 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 11-10105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Santiago Humberto RODRIGUEZ-APARICIO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 713–713

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Santiago Humberto RODRIGUEZ-APARICIO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10105.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2012.
Filed Feb. 16, 2012.
Robert A. Bork, Robert Lawrence Ell-man, Esquire, Patrick Michael Walsh, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, An Mai Nguyen, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel D. Hollingsworth, Esquire, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Beau Sterling, Sterling Law LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court's denial of Rodriguez-Aparicio's motion to exclude evidence related to his threats was not "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record," United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc), because the district court carefully weighed the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence, and offered limiting instructions to cure any unfairly prejudicial impact, including an instruction stating that such threats were relevant only to show consciousness of guilt. See Fed R. Evid. 402, 403; see also Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897-98 (9th Cir.1996).
Rodriguez's argument regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.