
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon URBINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50294
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 15, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed March 6, 2018
    Janaki Gandhi, Joseph S. Smith, Jr., Benjamin Holley, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Robert H. Rexrode, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: MCKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Urbina appeals his jury conviction for importation of methamphetamine on the ground that the district court improperly admitted evidence of three text messages found on his phone over his relevance objection. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

While the relevance of the three text messages was debatable, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United States v. Rendon-Duarte, 490 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court undertook a considered balancing of the probative value of the proffered evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. Even if the district court’s determinations were in error, such error was harmless. The jury was presented with overwhelming evidence of Urbina’s guilt, including the approximately fifteen pounds of methamphetamine that was found in the car he drove into the United States from Mexico at the time of his arrest. Consequently, the alleged error did not materially affect the verdict. United States v. Mitchell, 376 Fed.Appx. 749, 750 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     