United States v. Tam Quang Do
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-Appellant Tam Do appeals his conviction and sentence. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 , wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703 (2) and § 32709(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Do contends that the district court: (1) improperly admitted evidence of Do’s 2010 conviction for odometer fraud, aggravated identity theft, and mail fraud; (2) failed to give a sufficient limiting instruction to overcome the prejudicial effect of Do’s pri- or conviction; and (3) improperly denied Do’s motion for mistrial after inadmissible hearsay testimony was presented to the jury. We review each of these actions for abuse of discretion, which “requires us to uphold a district court determination that falls within a broad range of permissible conclusions, provided the district court did not apply the law erroneously.” Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.