052014.U

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2014
DIRECTV INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOEL CARRERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CA-03-93)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joel Carrera, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Casagrande, WILLIAMS, MULLEN,
HOFHEIMER & NUSBAUM, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Howard Robert Rubin,
SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joel Carrera appeals from the district court’s order
finding that he committed two violations of the Federal
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (2000), and a violation of
the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (2000), in a private action
brought by DirecTV, Inc. Carrera argues that the district court
abused its discretion in ruling inadmissible at trial two
settlement agreements to which DirecTV was a party, and an
affidavit by Jeffrey Fisher, a former DirecTV employee. Carrera
also challenges the district court’s finding that the violations at
issue could be inferred from his receipt of “pirate access devices”
and the maintenance of a suspended DirecTV account, particularly
when he returned one of the devices at issue about two weeks after
he received it.
With respect to the settlement agreements and the Fisher
affidavit, this court reviews a district court’s decision as to the
admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion and will not
find an abuse unless a decision was “arbitrary and irrational.”
United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). We
hold that the district court rationally excluded the settlement
agreements because their entry into evidence would not have
affected the district court’s consideration of the credibility of
other evidence submitted by DirecTV. See Fed. R. Evid. 408. We
also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
in excluding the Fisher affidavit, which makes no reference to
Carrera and does not shed light on the issues in dispute. See Fed.
R. Evid. 402, 403.
Regarding the district court’s finding that Carrera’s
violations could be inferred from his possession of pirate access
devices and maintenance of a suspended DirecTV account, we review
the court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error. Va. Vermiculite Ltd. v. Historic Green Springs, Inc.,
307 F.3d 277, 284 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
The district court noted that the evidence showed Carrera purchased
a “DualPro WTX Ultimate Unlooper Programmer” on January 17, 2001,
purchased an “Emulator complete with cables” on January 26, 2001,
and returned the Emulator on February 10, 2001. Carrera asserts
that because he returned the Emulator, he cannot be said to have
pirated DirecTV signals with the Emulator, and the § 605(a) count
related to his possession of the Emulator thus is not supported by
the evidence. This argument does not cast doubt upon the district
court’s factual finding that he possessed the Emulator, which was
capable of intercepting DirecTV signals, for two weeks, and during
that two-week period he maintained a suspended DirecTV account.
With respect to the district court’s conclusion that Carrera
pirated DirecTV programming based on circumstantial evidence, we
find the conclusion adequately supported by the evidence.
“[C]ircumstantial evidence is no less probative than direct

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
evidence,” and here, the district court’s inference was reasonable
and grounded in facts reflected in the record. Stamper v. Muncie,
944 F.2d 170, 174 (4th Cir. 1991).
We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.
See DirecTV v. Carrera, No. CA-03-93 (W.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2005). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --