Boubion

MEMORANDUM *

A jury convicted Defendant of one count of theft of mail, 18 U.S.C. § 1708 , and one count of theft of mail by a postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709 . He appeals his conviction and sentence.

1. Evidence of Prior Investigation of Embezzlement

This evidence was relevant to counter Defendant’s testimony that he was the target of a conspiracy and was being picked on unfairly instead of being investigated for a legitimate reason. The evidence of the prior investigation was admissible because it was used to demonstrate something other than Defendant’s character or propensity to steal. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Rrapi, 175 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir.1999).

Moreover, “when the defendant ‘opens the door’ to testimony about an issue by raising it for the first time himself, he cannot complain about subsequent government inquiry into that issue.” United States v. Hegwood, 977 F.2d 492, 496 (9th Cir.1992). Here, as trial counsel conceded, Defendant opened the door to evidence about the embezzlement investigation.

2. Obstruction of Justice

The district court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court properly found that Defendant…