Lin

MEMORANDUM

Lin appeals his conviction for alien smuggling under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(A)® and § 1324(a)(1)(B)®. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding from evidence the marine surveyor’s record of the condition of the ships.

We review a district court’s refusal to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Shirley, 884 F.2d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir.1989). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous view of the facts. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

Lin’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by excluding Unterberg’s surveys fails. The court has broad discretion to exclude evidence it believes is repetitive or “cumulative.” Fed.R.Evid. *824 403. See also Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 127 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) and United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1177 (9th Cir.2000).

Although there are some possible differences between Unterberg’s survey and his oral testimony, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the survey was cumulative…