United States of America v. Dawn Denise Staszak

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAWN DENISE STASZAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10381
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-08194-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Dawn Denise Staszak appeals from the district court judgment and
challenges her jury-trial conviction and one-month custodial and five-month home-
confinement sentence for two counts of unlawful possession of stolen mail, in
FILED
NOV 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Staszak was convicted of possessing stolen mail consisting of two Target
gift cards. Staszak argues that the district court should have excluded evidence that
she possessed 29 Walmart gift cards and 10 Kohl gift cards because this
constituted inadmissible “other act” evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 403
and 404(b). We disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting the Walmart gift card evidence because it was inextricably intertwined
with Staszak’s arrest and necessary to permit the government to offer a coherent
story explaining how evidence was obtained. See United States v. Vizcarra-
Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting the Kohl gift card evidence under Rule 404(b) because it
tended to show Staszak’s knowledge and intent. See United States v. Cherer, 513
F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2008). The record as a whole demonstrates that the
district court properly determined that the probative value of the gift card evidence
outweighed its prejudicial effect, and an appropriate limiting jury instruction was
given. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022, 1027,
1029 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004).
12-10381 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Staszak next contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing
by failing to consider any 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factor other than deterrence and by
failing to consider her mitigating arguments. She further contends her sentence is
substantively unreasonable in light of these errors. The record indicates that the
district court did not procedurally err and that Staszak’s within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence and
the protection of the integrity of the postal service. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.
12-10381 3

-- 3 of 3 --