
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Gene WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Dec. 11, 2014.
    Submitted Dec. 22, 2014.
    Filed April 2, 2015.
    Glenn Brian McCormick, Assistant U.S., Rachel Cristina Hernandez, Assistant U.S., Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Robert White appeals his jury conviction of one count of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Cocaine, one count of Conspiracy to Launder Money Instruments, and three counts of Transactional Money Laundering.

I

There was sufficient evidence to support White’s convictions. Evidence included direct testimony from a co-conspirator, physical evidence connecting White to the drug and money laundering conspiracies, White’s nervous behavior when questioned by law enforcement, White’s repeated contact with multiple members of the conspiracy, and White’s own purchases and financial transactions.

In light of such evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150, 1163 (9th Cir.2011).

II

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) against White. The evidence was material and similar to the charged crimes, was not too remote in time, and was itself supported by sufficient evidence. United States v. Chea, 231 F.3d 531, 534 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, given the court’s limiting instruction, the probative value of the 404(b) evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. See id.

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