MEMORANDUM *

The district court’s denial of Rodriguez-Aparicio’s motion to exclude evidence related to his threats was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record,” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), because the district court carefully weighed the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence, and offered limiting instructions to cure any unfairly prejudicial impact, including an instruction stating that such threats were relevant only to show consciousness of guilt. See Fed R. Evid. 402, 403; see also Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897-98 (9th Cir. 1996).

Rodriguez’s argument regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.