Defendant-Appellant Brian Graco was indicted for receiving child pornography. Graco filed a notice of an insanity defense to be supported by testimony from Dr. Frederic J. Sautter. The Government filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Gra-co from raising an insanity defense or introducing any evidence of his alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. Relying on United States v. Eff, 524 F.3d 712, 717-19 (5th Cir. 2008), the district court found that Dr. Sautter’s report did not show that Graco satisfied the elements required for an insanity defense under 18 U.S.C. § 17. The district court granted the Government’s motion. Graco pleaded guilty and specifically reserved the right to appeal the granting of the Government’s motion.

We review a district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ogle, 328 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2003). In Eff, we held that an insanity defense under § 17 requires that the defendant be completely unable to appreciate the quality of his actions and that having only a diminished capacity to do so was insufficient for the defense. Eff, 524 F.3d at 718-720. Graco concedes that the district court was bound by the existing definition of insanity in § 17 and that Eff governs our review. Graco raises a challenge to § 17 to preserve it for further direct review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.