T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F R E DE R I C K L I M J OH NS ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10025 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 25 1-M M C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a xi ne M . C he s ne y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 14, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , N O O N A N , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F r e de r i c k L i m J ohns on appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd i m po si t i on of a l i fe se nt ence . W e have j uri sdi ct i on ov erthi s t i m el y app ea l un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 I.

“ ‘ W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thata pre -a rr ai gn m entdel ayw as re as on abl e f

or cl ea r e rr or. ’ ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. L i era , 58 5 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 42 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) , q u o t i n gU

n i ted S ta tes v. P a d i l la -Men do za , 15 7 F . 3d 73 0, 73 2 (9th C i r. 19 98 ). T here w as no cl ea r e rr or. E ven i f there w er e, i n l i gh tof the corroborat ed i nde pe nde nte vi de nc e a ga i ns tJ ohns on, a ny e rr orr e ga r di ng the a dm i s s i on of the s ta te m e n ts w a s h a rm le s s ; th e r e f o r e , r e v e r s a l o n th is g r o u n d is in ap p r o p r ia te . See id. a t 1 2 4 4 ( “A n e rr o ris h a rm le s s if it is m o r e p r o b ab le th a n n o t th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t m a te r ia lly a f

f e c t th e v e r d ic t” ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ) ; O l i v as v . State of A r i z . ex r e l . E

y m an , 44 7 F . 2d 97 4, 97 5– 76 (9th C i r. 19 71 ). II. W e “r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e rr e f e r e n c e s to a d e f

e n d a n t’s s ile n c e v io la te h is F i fth A m endm entri gh tt o rem ai n si l ent . ” U ni te d State s v . P i no- N

or i ega , 189 F . 3d 1089, 1098 ( 9th C i r . 1999) . “ [ U ] nde rourpr e c e de nt , pr os e c ut or i a l c om m e nt s on fa i l ure t o t es t i fyon l y r equi re re vers al ‘ w here such com m enti s e xt ensi ve, w here an i nf e r e nc e of gui l tf r om s i l e nc e i s s tr e s s e d t o the j ury a s a ba s i s f orthe c onvi c t i on, and w here there i s e vi dence thatcoul d h ave s up po rt ed ac qu i tt al . ’ ” B eardslee v. W o o d f o rd , 3 5 8 F .3 d 5 6 0 , 5 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , quot i ng L i nc oln v . Sunn , 807 F . 2d 805, 809 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . B e c a us e the r e w a s e xt e ns i ve e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d of3

John son’ s gui l t , veryl i tt l e e vi dence thatsupp ort ed ac qu i tt al , and b ec ause the tri al j u d g e g av e a cu rat i v e i n stru ct i o n , an y D oyl e e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . Se e L in c o ln , 807 F .2 d a t 8 0 9 . III.

“ W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a m ot i on f

ora m i s tr i a l unde rthe abus e of di sc re t i on st andard. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Fe r n a n dez, 38 8 F . 3d 11 99 , 12 40 (9th C i r. 2004) . I n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng J ohns on’ s c onvi c t i on, a ny e rr or r e ga r di ng the thr e e obj e c t e d t o br i e f s t a t e m e nt s s ugge s t i ng J ohns on’ s pr i or in c a r c e r a tio n w a s h a rm le s s . See U n i ted S ta tes v. G u errero , 756 F . 2d 1342, 1347 (9th C i r. 19 84 ). S i m i l ar l y, any c um ul at i ve error thatre nd er ed John son’ s tri al f u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a irw a s h a rm le s s . See U n i ted S ta tes v. B erry , 627 F . 2d 193, 201 (9th C i r. 19 80 ). AF F I RME D.