Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel Scott HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-10
Citations: 587 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 12-10465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel Scott HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 411–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel Scott HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10465.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2014.
Filed Dec. 10, 2014.
Owen Peter Martikan, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Manuel Urquidez Araujo, Law Office of Manuel U. Araujo, Morgan Hill, CA, Daniel Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lionel Scott Harris timely appeals his conviction in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give the two requested jury instructions. See United States v. Chastain, 84 F.3d 321, 323 (9th Cir.1996). A district court "has broad discretion" in formulating appropriate jury instructions. United States v. Hayes, 794 F.2d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1986). Additionally, a defendant is not entitled to a particularly worded instruction where the instructions given, when viewed as a whole, adequately and correctly cover the substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Solomon, 825 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir.1987).
In light of the standard credibility instructions given, the court's refusal to give the requested Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus instruction was not an abuse of discretion. See Hayes, 794 F.2d at 1351. Furthermore, it was not plain error to refuse a no-adverse inference instruction because the jury was instructed that Harris was presumed innocent and not required to testify, and Harris absconded during his trial.
Under plain error review, Harris did not identify particularly egregious statements by the prosecutor that seriously affected the "fairness, integrity or public reputation of [his] judicial proceedings." United States v. Sanchez, 659 F.3d 1252, 1256 (9th Cir.2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. 1A Kevin F. O'Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 15:06 (6th ed.2008).