Cuevas

MEMORANDUM *

A jury convicted Manuel Cuevas of importing cocaine and possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. Cuevas appeals his conviction and sentence, challenging various rulings by the district court judge. We affirm on all issues. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we re *547 count them only as necessary to explain our decision.

First, the district court appropriately limited the evidence pertaining to Miguel Farias’ motive and means to retaliate against Cuevas. “We review for abuse of discretion whether evidence is relevant, ... and whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect....” United States v. Butts, 9 Fed.Appx. 612, 614 (9th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). “The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (internal quotation and citation omitted). However, the exclusion of “marginally relevant” and “highly speculative” evidence does not violate a criminal defendant’s due process rights. United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1339-40 (9th Cir.1993). Cuevas failed to tie…