United States v. Daniel Blow

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Blow was convicted on two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) for distribution of crack cocaine. He challenges the denial of his motion for sanctions for destruction of evidence, the admission of records of a prior conviction pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the formulation of the district court’s limiting instruction about the Rule 404(b) evidence, and the brief presence of an alternate in the jury room after the charge. He also asserts cumulative error. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. Blow argues that the district court erred by concluding that bad faith is required before sanctions for the negligent destruction of evidence can be imposed. See United States v. Sivilla, 714 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2013) (noting that absence of bad faith is not dispositive on a motion for sanctions). It is plain, however, that the district court performed the proper balancing, see id. at 1173-74 , and did not improperly consider the absence of bad faith to be dispositive.

2. Blow argues, alternatively, that the district court improperly evaluated the prejudice resulting from the destruction of evidence. But the district court’s…