Opinion ID: 3155932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s ruling on the admissibility of witness testimony for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 422 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 133 (5th Cir. 2012). Even if the district court abuses its discretion in admitting evidence, this court will affirm “[u]nless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.” United States v. MendozaMedina, 346 F.3d 121, 127 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 Although participation in a single suspicious transaction might be insufficient to show deliberate ignorance, this court has held that the “routine and repeated pattern of suspicious transactions” may be sufficiently suspicious to infer subjective awareness of illegal activity. See United States v. Nguyen, 493 F.3d 613, 620 (5th Cir. 2007). 11 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351