
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Carl SALOIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014.
    Filed June 10, 2014.
    Laura Bissett Weiss, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph Mayo Ashley, I, Ashley Law Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Donald Salois appeals the district court’s judgement following his jury conviction for Aggravated Sexual Abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1), assigning error to two evidentiary rulings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings, and de novo whether an evidentiary issue rises to the level of a constitutional violation. United States v. Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d 1019, 1031-32 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Salois’s prior acts of sexual misconduct because it properly determined that the risk of prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 403, 413; United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir.2001) (describing non-exclusive factors that courts should consider in making that determination). LeMay also forecloses Salois’s constitutional arguments. See 260 F.3d at 1026-31.

The district court did not err in excluding evidence of prior sexual acts between Salois and the victim because it properly determined that the risk of prejudice and other legitimate concerns outweighed the probative value of the evidence. See Fed. R.Evid. 403, 412; Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544, 1550 (9th Cir.1992) (“Because trial judges have broad discretion both to determine relevance and to determine whether prejudicial effect or other concerns outweigh the probative value of the evidence, we will find a [constitutional] violation only if we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     