Kirschenman

MEMORANDUM **

After the district court denied his motion to suppress statements made following his arrest, Leslie 1 Kirschenman conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (h). On appeal, he asserts error in two rulings underlying the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. First, he argues that the district court erred by holding a second evidentiary hearing and receiving supplemental evidence after the magistrate judge recommended granting his motion to suppress. Second, he claims the district court erred by allowing several Government witnesses to testify for the first time at the second hearing allegedly in violation of a sequestering order. We AFFIRM. 2

I

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to consider evidence presented for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and *821 recommendation. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622-23 (9th Cir. 2000).

Kirschenman argues that the district court abused its discretion by holding a second evidentiary hearing and allowing the Government to present witnesses that were potentially available at the first…