United States v. Washington Bryan, II ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    APR 17 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.    17-50083
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
    2:16-cr-00320-RGK-1
    v.
    WASHINGTON BRYAN II,                             MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 13, 2018**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: ROGERS,*** BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that the
    structured funds were derived from a potentially illicit source. The challenged
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Page 2 of 3
    evidence tended to show that Dr. Washington Bryan II prescribed opioids and
    other drugs in exchange for cash. This evidence was relevant to prove that Bryan
    acted with the requisite intent because it “provid[ed] a reason why [Bryan] might
    have intended illegally to structure” the cash transactions. United States v. Weems,
    
    49 F.3d 528
    , 532 (9th Cir. 1995). From the disputed evidence, the jury could infer
    that Bryan structured his deposits to evade reporting requirements and avoid
    drawing attention to his potentially improper prescription practices.
    The admission of the evidence did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404.
    Although the evidence involved acts dissimilar to the charged conduct, similarity
    “is not always a prerequisite.” United States v. Ramirez-Jimenez, 
    967 F.2d 1321
    ,
    1326 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the evidence was highly probative of Bryan’s motive,
    and therefore was admissible under Rule 404(b). See 
    id. Nor did
    the district court abuse its discretion in weighing the risk of unfair
    prejudice against the probative value of the evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of
    Evidence 403. The evidence had significant probative value, particularly because
    Bryan disputed the intent element at trial and offered an alternative explanation for
    the pattern of deposits. While evidence of potential drug diversion carried a risk of
    prejudice, the district court mitigated that risk by issuing limiting instructions to
    the jury. See United States v. Flores-Blanco, 
    623 F.3d 912
    , 920 (9th Cir. 2010).
    Page 3 of 3
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-50083

Filed Date: 4/17/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021