Dharni

MEMORANDUM **

Sundeep Dharni appeals his conviction and sentence for (1) conspiracy to commit arson, (2) aiding and abetting arson, (3) aiding and abetting arson for the purpose of mail fraud, and (4) mail fraud. He contends that the district court erroneously admitted evidence of his financial dealings and methamphetamine use, limited his cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses, and imposed a mandatory sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 844 (h) consecutive to his sentence under § 844(i).

1. Dharni challenges the district court’s admission, over his objection, of evidence concerning his financial dealings and his history of methamphetamine use with his co-conspirator, Richard Duran. Trial judges have “wide discretion” to determine whether evidence is relevant. United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir.1983). A district court’s “determination that the prejudicial effect of particular evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir.2005).

Dharni concedes that the admitted evidence was relevant; he admits that evidence of…