United States of America v. JAN MORTEN HEGER, AKA Stan Morton Heger

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAN MORTEN HEGER, AKA Stan
Morton Heger,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50473
D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00019-JST-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 10, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Jan Morton Heger, who was convicted of making a false statement
on a passport application and using a passport obtained by false statements, both in
FILED
APR 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for
a mistrial and for a new trial.
Regardless of the district court’s pretrial in limine ruling, it was within the
district court’s discretion to admit testimony regarding the duration of Heger’s
departure from the United States. See United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121,
1127 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary
opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. The district
court may change its ruling at trial . . .”) (citation omitted). Indeed, the district
court expressly reserved the right to reconsider its ruling. The testimony was
relevant to prove Heger’s intent to make a false statement on his passport
application and thereby flee the country, and any prejudice was outweighed by the
evidence’s probative value.
Because the admission of testimony regarding the duration of Heger’s
departure was the sole basis for Heger’s motions for a mistrial and a new trial, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. See Alaska Rent-
A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 709 F.3d 872, 884 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[We]
reverse only if the record contains no evidence in support of the verdict or if the
district court made a mistake of law.”) (footnote reference and internal quotation
marks omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --