UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50220
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00438-MCS-1 v. Central District of California, Los Angeles MICHAEL JOLLY, ORDER Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BOGGS,* FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
The Memorandum Disposition filed on August 14, 2025, is amended and the
amended Memorandum Disposition is filed concurrently with this order. With this
order, Judges Boggs and Friedland vote to deny Jolly’s petition for panel
rehearing, and Judge Bress votes to grant it. The petition for rehearing is
DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.
* The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50220
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00438-MCS-1 v.
MICHAEL JOLLY, AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 24, 2025 Pasadena, California
Before: BOGGS,** FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge BRESS. Defendant-Appellant Michael Jolly appeals his convictions for possession
with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
On appeal, Jolly challenges the admission of certain evidence under the Federal
Rules of Evidence, the Government’s presentation of that admitted evidence at
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. trial, and the admission of other evidence under the Confrontation Clause. Jolly
also argues that even if no single error is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant
reversal, the cumulative prejudicial effect of multiple errors is. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo whether evidence is “other act” evidence under Rule
404(b) and review for abuse of discretion the district court’s admission of evidence
under Rule 404(b). United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1180–81 (9th Cir.
2019). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s admission of evidence
under Rule 403. United States v. Cabrera, 83 F.4th 729, 736 (9th Cir. 2023).
When “it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the evidence
did not affect the jury’s verdict,” such an evidentiary error does not warrant
reversal. United States v. Holmes, 129 F.4th 636, 651 (9th Cir. 2025). We review
de novo “whether any prosecutorial misconduct occurred.” United States v. Flores,
802 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2015). We review de novo whether a defendant’s
Confrontation Clause rights were violated. United States v. Johnson, 875 F.3d
1265, 1278 (9th Cir. 2017). A Confrontation Clause violation does not require
reversal “if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the
constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van
Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986). Even where no one error is sufficiently
prejudicial, we evaluate whether the cumulative weight of multiple errors is
2 prejudicial enough to warrant reversal. United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370,
1381 (9th Cir. 1996).
1. The district court did not err in admitting the September 23 or 26 phone
calls, in which Jolly stated, “I sell drugs to [five or six] people.” Those statements
are directly relevant to whether he possessed with intent to distribute on July 2,
2020, because they evince that Jolly had an ongoing drug business during a time
period that included July 2, 2020, making it more probable “than it would be
without the evidence” that Jolly possessed with intent to distribute on that date.
Fed. R. Evid. 401; see United States v. Moorehead, 57 F.3d 875, 878 (9th Cir.
1995) (holding that evidence of ongoing criminal conduct identical to the conduct
being charged during the relevant time period is “direct evidence” of the charged
crime).1
Any proper exercise of discretion would require admitting the September 23
and 26 calls under Rule 403. Although those calls are prejudicial, “relevant
evidence is inherently prejudicial; [and] it is only unfair prejudice, substantially
outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under
Rule 403.” United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000)
1 Although the district court may have concluded that the calls were direct evidence for a mistaken reason (i.e., that the calls described actual drug sales that occurred on July 2), we review de novo whether evidence is “other acts” evidence and therefore are not limited to the district court’s reasoning.
3 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Mills, 704 F.2d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir.
1983)). Here, the prejudicial material and the probative material are one and the
same. What makes the September 23 and 26 calls prejudicial is what makes them
probative, too. Any prejudice caused by those calls was therefore not unfair, and
the district court did not err in admitting the September 23 or September 26 calls
under Rule 403. See United States v. Cruz-Garcia, 344 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir.
2003).
Jolly argues that even if the September 23 and 26 phone calls were
admissible, the Government improperly used the September 23 or 26 calls as
propensity evidence. That argument is also unavailing. Jolly’s examples mostly
indicate that the Government repeatedly referred to the evidence of those calls, but
repeatedly referring to properly admitted evidence is not improper. See United
States v. Tucker, 641 F.3d 1110, 1120 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that prosecutors
“have considerable leeway to strike ‘hard blows’ based on the evidence and all
reasonable inferences from the evidence” (citation omitted)). Although the
Government did refer to Jolly as a “drug dealer” at one point, we have held that
calling a defendant a “dope dealer” is a permissible “hard blow” when that
defendant is charged with dealing drugs. United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d
1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Jolly was charged with possession with intent to
distribute, which requires proof of an intent to deal drugs. Even if calling Jolly a
4 drug dealer were improper, “a single improper statement” would not warrant
reversal. Flores, 802 F.3d at 1040.2
But even if Jolly is right that the Government used, or the jury might have
considered, the September 23 or 26 calls as propensity evidence, he was entitled at
most to a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction. Any error that the district court made in
declining to give a limiting instruction was harmless. “Reversal is not required if
‘there is a “fair assurance” of harmlessness or, stated otherwise, unless it is more
probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.’” United
States v. Lague, 971 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v.
Bailey, 696 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2012)). Here, it is more probable than not that
a limiting instruction would not have materially affected the jury verdict because
of the highly persuasive evidence against Jolly. The evidence at trial included,
among other things, additional, uncontested calls from September 10 and
September 14 (during which Jolly said that a police officer “[j]ust stumbled across
me with a billion dollars’ worth of drugs in my backpack”) and Jolly’s fingerprint
2 The dissent points out that the Government represented in opening argument that “[t]here are multiple calls in which defendant admits . . . that he had drugs to sell on July 2nd, 2020.” Dissent at 6. That representation was inaccurate to the extent it suggested that Jolly had expressly referred to a specific date during the calls. Any challenge to his conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct in mischaracterizing the evidence by making that statement, however, was “not raised clearly and distinctly in the opening brief” so has been forfeited on appeal. McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 891 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009).
5 found on cutting agent in the backpack—as well as the September 23 and 26 calls
themselves for their valid, non-propensity purposes.
2. To the extent that the district court erred by admitting the September 13
call, any error would have been harmless so as to not warrant reversal. The
meaning of the September 13 phone call is ambiguous. Although Jolly seemed to
express during the call that he was upset about being arrested, the call does not
admit Jolly’s guilt, nor does it indicate Jolly’s criminal propensity because the jury
would have understood the redacted September 13 call to refer only to the arrest on
July 2, 2020. Given the September 13 call’s ambiguity, it is more likely than not
that the admission of that call did not affect the jury’s verdict.
3. Jolly argues that the admission of Officer Alvarez’s, Officer Lusk’s, and
Agent Slovek’s hearsay testimony concerning Wade Batchelor violated Jolly’s
Confrontation Clause rights. But those Confrontation Clause violations do not
warrant reversal because they are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.3 Alvarez’s
testimony, which indicated that Jolly had thrown his backpack over to Batchelor in
the parking lot, was harmless because, if believed, it actually supported the
3 Although it undisputed that Jolly’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated, the parties dispute whether Jolly waived his Confrontation Clause rights; whether, if not waived, each of Jolly’s Confrontation Clause challenges should be reviewed for plain error or de novo; and whether the Confrontation Clause violations were harmless. We need not decide the first two issues because we hold that, even if Jolly’s Confrontation Clause challenges were not waived and are reviewed de novo, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 defense’s theory that Batchelor somehow gained access to and planted drugs in
Jolly’s backpack. Relatedly, Slovek’s and Lusk’s testimony on redirect was also
harmless because Batchelor’s credibility had been thoroughly impeached by other
testimony. Considered in light of all the other evidence in the record, the
admission of any hearsay testimony about Batchelor’s statements to Lusk and
Slovek was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.4
4. The cumulative effect of any potential errors here would not warrant
reversal. The Government’s calling Jolly a drug dealer once during closing
argument would have had little prejudicial effect, even if it were misconduct. The
September 13 call is so ambiguous that its possible prejudicial effect would have
been far from clear, even if admitting the call were error. The September 23 and
26 calls could still have been considered as direct evidence, even if there had been
a limiting instruction. Alvarez’s hearsay testimony has no prejudicial effect
because, if believed, it bolstered the defense theory. And Slovek’s and Lusk’s
hearsay testimony had little prejudicial effect, if any, because Batchelor’s
credibility had already been thoroughly impeached by other testimony. Considered
in light of all the other evidence in the record, even assuming those were all errors,
4 Because we hold that the admission of Alvarez’s, Lusk’s, and Slovek’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, it follows that any violation of Rule 403 as to Alvarez’s, Lusk’s, and Slovek’s hearsay testimony was also harmless under the standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary challenges. See Holmes, 129 F.4th at 651.
7 their combined effect would not have been “so prejudicial as to require reversal.”
Necoechea, 986 F.2d at 1282.
AFFIRMED.
8 FILED United States v. Jolly, 22-50220 FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK BRESS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Michael Jolly’s first trial for possessing drugs with intent to distribute ended
in a mistrial after jurors could not reach agreement. The government re-tried Jolly,
but this time it introduced incriminating phone calls that Jolly made from jail. The
district court admitted these calls without a Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) limiting
instruction. The government then repeatedly invoked the calls before the jury. The
calls were key: the jury in Jolly’s second trial found him guilty. In my view, the
admission of the calls without clarifying instructions was manifest and prejudicial
error. I would vacate Jolly’s conviction.
Jolly was charged with possession with intent to distribute based only on his
possession of drugs on July 2, 2020. Jolly was subsequently arrested twice more for
drug offenses that summer, on August 9 and August 28, but the district court
excluded this uncharged conduct under Rule 404(b). In September 2020, Jolly made
several phone calls from jail in which he expressed surprise that he would be charged
federally, although at the time Jolly did not know which arrest or arrests would serve
as the basis for the federal charges. Statements from two calls, which took place on
September 23 and September 26, 2020, are highly relevant here.
September 23, 2020:
Jolly: Yeah, you know what I mean? I mean, dude, um like I don’t know why they [federal prosecutors] would want me, period. Like, I mean dude, it’s like. Like, I sell drugs to five people. You know what I’m saying? You know what I mean? I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t get it. You know what I mean? But whatever, you know what I mean? You just have to roll with the punches.
September 26, 2020:
Jolly: I’m not a bad guy. You know what I mean? I’m not a bad guy, bro. Like, I don’t do people dirty out there or nothing like that. You know what I mean? [Unintelligible.]
Speaker: I give them what they pay for.
Jolly: Huh?
Speaker: I give them what they paid for. I don’t sell them short stacks.
Jolly: Yeah, yeah, well yeah, you know what I mean? Like all, honestly bro, all bullshit [unintelligible]. I sell drugs to six people, bro, that’s it! My close [unintelligible]. That’s it, bro. I’ll admit to that. I’ll admit to that all fucking day. You, you got me fuck, I’m red handed, dude. You know what I mean?
Jolly objected to these calls as improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b), but
the district court declined to give a limiting instruction.
The district court concluded that the key statements in these calls did not
implicate Rule 404(b) because they were not evidence “of any other crime, wrong,
or act.” Instead, the district court reasoned that these calls “refer to the July 2, 2020
arrest,” because Jolly referenced federal prosecutors pursuing him, and “[t]he only
case the federal government has prosecuted against Defendant relates to the July 2,
2020 arrest,” so the calls were direct evidence that Jolly sold drugs on July 2, 2020.
2 This reasoning is mistaken because at the time of the September jail calls, Jolly did
not know which of his summertime arrests would be the basis for federal charges.
In a footnote, the majority tellingly distances itself from the district court’s erroneous
reasoning.
Instead, the majority offers a new rationale. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence
401, the general test for relevant evidence, the majority concludes that Jolly’s
statements in the September 23 and 26 calls “are directly relevant to whether he
possessed with intent to distribute on July 2, 2020, because they evince that Jolly
had an ongoing drug business during a time period that included July 2, 2020,
making it more probable ‘than it would be without the evidence’ that Jolly possessed
with intent to distribute on that date.” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401).
The majority confuses concepts. Jolly’s jailhouse statements may well make
it more probable that Jolly possessed drugs on July 2, 2020. But any evidence of
Jolly’s other drug dealing would have that effect, based on the supposition that one
who deals drugs is more likely to have done so on a particular occasion. Yet Rule
404(b) steps in to prevent jurors from drawing that very type of inference. See
United States v. Jimenez-Chaidez, 96 F.4th 1257, 1264 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining
that Rule 404(b) guards against jurors drawing the forbidden inference “that the
defendant is more likely guilty of the charged crime because of his past behavior
(i.e., ‘the propensity inference’)”). The possible relevance of Jolly’s statements
3 under Rule 401 does not prove they fall outside Rule 404(b).
Relevant or not, Jolly’s statements clearly count as evidence of “any other
crime, wrong, or act” beyond the “particular occasion” for which Jolly was charged.
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) is implicated when “a jury would likely infer from
the statement[s]” that Jolly committed other crimes or wrongs beyond the charged
conduct. United States v. Parks, 285 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). That is
certainly the case here.
Even assuming Jolly’s September 23 and 26 calls encompassed his conduct
on July 2, 2020—although he never specifically referenced his actions on that day—
the statements most naturally refer to a continued pattern of wrongful drug-related
conduct. Jolly speaks in the present tense (“I sell drugs to five people,” and “I sell
drugs to six people”), connoting a continuous course of conduct. He speaks about a
different type of act, “selling” drugs, than the act with which he was charged,
possession of drugs. And in context, we know Jolly was referring to more conduct
than just July 2, because the calls took place after he had been arrested three times.
It is likely, based on Jolly’s use of the present tense and his references to selling
drugs, that the jury would infer that the phone calls referred to acts on dates other
than just July 2. Indeed, even the majority decision says that the calls “evince that
Jolly had an ongoing drug business during [that] time period,” a description that on
its face includes other acts. At minimum, the district court clearly erred in not giving
4 a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction. And the government has never suggested a non-
propensity purpose for the calls, thereby waiving any argument that they were
otherwise admissible under Rule 404(b).
The main case the majority cites, United States v. Moorehead, 57 F.3d 875
(9th Cir. 1995), is inapposite. In Moorehead, the defendant was charged with being
a felon in possession of a firearm, and the court ruled that testimony from the
defendant’s roommates that he had possessed the same firearm on multiple prior
occasions was not other acts evidence, but rather direct evidence of the charged
offense. Id. at 878. Moorehead would be analogous if the testimony in question
there concerned the defendant’s possession of other guns or his general habit of
possessing guns, rather than his earlier possession of the same firearm that he was
charged with illegally possessing. The majority accurately describes Moorehead as
a case that treats as direct evidence “evidence of ongoing criminal conduct identical
to the conduct being charged.” (Emphasis added). That description does not apply
to Jolly’s September 23 and 26 statements.
Nor can the government show that the September 23 and 26 calls were
harmless. See United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th Cir.
2005). Instead, the calls were maximally prejudicial given the way in which the
government used them at trial. The government not only repeatedly invoked the
calls, it used them to drive a propensity inference. See United States v. Charley, 1
5 F.4th 637, 651 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Even where evidence of other acts is admissible, it
is impermissible for the Government to argue that such evidence reflects the
defendant’s character.”). For example, the government in its opening statement told
jurors that “[t]here are multiple calls in which the defendant admits he’s a drug
dealer,” and that “[t]his is a case about a drug dealer who was caught in the act and
has admitted to his crimes,” plural. Although the majority notes that a prosecutor’s
reference to a defendant being a drug dealer may not always be improper, here the
government characterized Jolly through its reliance on a broader range of uncharged
conduct from the two calls. As the district court cautioned the government at trial,
“referring to him as a drug dealer I think connotes that there is a repeated pattern of
this.”
And beyond the propensity inferences, the government also miscast the
September 23 and 26 calls as referring to the July 2, 2020 arrest. The government
represented at the beginning of its opening statement, for example, that “[t]here are
multiple calls in which defendant admits he’s a drug dealer and that he had drugs to
sell on July 2nd, 2020.” The latter portion of that statement is inaccurate, which
merely underscores the fact that the government’s use of the calls was improper.1
1 The majority’s assertion that Jolly has forfeited this argument is incorrect. Jolly clearly argues that the government’s use of the calls in its opening statement was improper. In his opening brief, he specifically quotes this portion of the opening statement and argues that by using the words “and”—“There are multiple calls in
6 The same is true of the government’s repeated statements that Jolly had “admitted
to his crimes,” unless, of course, “crimes” refers to a series of other uncharged acts,
which underscores the need for a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction.
The majority’s amended disposition now asserts that even if the district court
erred in not giving a Rule 404(b) instruction, the government has shown that any
error is harmless “because of the highly persuasive evidence against Jolly.” But the
first jury trial that considered the charges resulted in a mistrial. And the additional
evidence the majority points to does not allow the government to meet its burden of
showing that “it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the
verdict.” Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d at 1099 (quotations omitted); see also Charley,
1 F.4th at 651 (explaining that “we must start with a presumption of prejudice as to
the effects of ‘other acts’ evidence”) (quotations omitted).
The September 10, 2020 call concerned Jolly asking for cigarettes and proves
little. The “billion dollars” comment in the September 14, 2020 call involved Jolly
laughing while sarcastically criticizing a newspaper article about his arrest that he
regarded as inaccurate. Jolly’s fingerprint on a scoop with a cutting agent, found
inside his backpack, is also not conclusive evidence of guilt. Jolly’s fingerprints
were not found elsewhere in the bag, the drugs did not contain the cutting agent, and
which defendant admits he’s a drug dealer and that he had drugs to sell on July 2nd, 2020”—the government was asking the jury to infer guilt because Jolly was a drug dealer. 7 the fingerprint was consistent with Jolly’s theory that the drugs themselves were not
his. The additional evidence the majority cites is not so strong as to overcome the
error in not giving a Rule 404(b) instruction for the critical September 23 and 26
calls, which the government heavily emphasized in its presentation to the jury.
Jolly’s defense at trial was that the drugs found in a backpack on July 2 were
not his. The first jury that heard the government’s evidence could not reach
agreement. The September 23 and 26 jailhouse calls at the second trial were the
difference-maker. Because these calls contained evidence about Jolly’s other
misconduct that exceeded the conduct for which he was charged, and because no
Rule 404(b) limiting instruction was provided, Jolly’s conviction should be vacated.