he was absent from the resi-dencie. 20 . In any event, as demonstrated by the parties' closing arguments, and borne out by the entirety of the trial transcript, it is abundantly clear the district court, the parties, and the jury fully understood Meisel wás asserting J.H. and/or W.R. was responsible for the child pornography found on Meisel’s external hard drive. This matter is discussed more fully below. 21 . Meisel fails to cite any support for his contention that having admitted evidence others had access to his computer, the district court was obligated to allow him to argue any inference he would like from the evidence. This is most surely because that contention is wrong. It is not remotely odd for a district court to admit-evidence for a limited purpose. See Fed. R. Evid. 105 (<HOLDING>). Thus, contrary to Meisel’s arguments, the
recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts recognizing power of district courts to control movement of cases from filing to final disposition recognizing district courts power to admit evidence for a limited purpose holding that a debtors power to classify claims is limited recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals