Case ID: f-appx_607/html/0761-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paciano LIZARRAGA-TIRADO, aka Pasiano Lizarraga-Tirado, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10530.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 14, 2015.
    Filed June 18, 2015.
    Ryan Ellersick, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roger H. Sigal, Esquire, Law Office of Roger H. Sigal, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
    
   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 prosecutor’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.