United States v. Paciano Lizarraga-Tirado

607 F. App'x 761

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

1. Defendant didn’t object to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, so we review for plain error. Any error was not “plain” because the prosecu tor’s passing reference to his interview with Agent Nunez and his statement that the case was “memorable” for Agent Garcia weren’t “clear or obvious” prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Anguiano-Morfin, 713 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir.2013).

2. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of multiple prior removals. “[PJroving that the defendant has been previously removed is an essential element” of a section 1326 conviction, and the government may introduce evidence of multiple removals “to hedge the risk that the jury may reject the offered proof of one [removal], but not the other.” United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.