
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph SILVA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Georgia Silva, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 10-10318, 10-10330.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2011.
    
    Filed April 21, 2011.
    Carolyn K. Delaney, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Angela MacDonald Miller, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Petrik, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior 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 Lesley Wells, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph and Georgia Silvas’ consolidated appeal seeks review of the district court’s reasoned determination to permit the admission of “other acts” testimony, and exclude evidence of the Silvas’ state trial proceedings, in the Silvas’ federal trial in which a jury convicted each Appellant for interference with the federally protected activity of another resulting in injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B). The Silvas also challenge the district court’s finding that sufficient evidence supported their convictions.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the material, similar, and timely testimony, under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), of Tanvir Hussain, Ashley Kelly, and Gregory Parnow, as “other act” evidence bearing on the Silvas’ intent and motivation toward the victim in this matter. See United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Silvas’ state proceedings as irrelevant to the instant federal charges and as unnecessarily confusing for the jury. See United States v. Spencer, 1 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.1992). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented proved sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the area in which the victim sustained the physical assault was part and parcel of the El Dorado Beach park. See United States v. Webster, 623 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir.2010).

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