Medina-Huerta

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Ramon Medina-Huerta appeals his conviction and forty-eight month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We affirm.

The district court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination regarding document shredding at the Laguna Niguel processing facility. The testimony sought by Medina-Huerta was marginally relevant at best, highly prejudicial, and not based on the witness’s personal knowledge. See Fed.R.Evid. 403; Fed.R.Evid. 602. The district court did not err, therefore, because it did not limit relevant testimony, prejudice the defendant, or deny the jury sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness. United States v. Holler, 411 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Medina-Huerta was not entitled to a different jury instruction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). “As a functional matter, the Attorney General’s consent to apply for admission [required under § 1326(a)] is tantamount to his consent to the admission itself.” United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). For this reason, the instruction requiring the…