McNeil

MEMORANDUM *

1. Even if the district court erred in admitting the name of a website, “Boy-love.com,” on the favorites list of defendant’s personal computer, we may reverse only if the error “more likely than not affected the verdict.” United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Admission of this testimony did not affect the verdict as the website’s name was separately admitted into evidence and McNeil does not challenge this admission.

2. As McNeil did not object to the admission of the parents’ testimony at trial that the knowledge of this website made them concerned McNeil might be a pedophile, we review for plain error. See United States v. Tisor, 96 F.3d 370, 376 (9th Cir.1996). The admission of this testimony was not error. The testimony was relevant to show intent to violate the protection order. See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402. The district court’s limiting instruction reduced any concern that the probative value of the evidence was “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” or confusion. Fed.R.Evid. 403; see also United States v. Rubio-Villareal, 927 F.2d 1495, 1503 (9th Cir.1991).

3. We need not…