Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pavel VAKULSKY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-18
Citations: 50 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 01-30445; D.C. No. CR-00-00415-MA
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Pavel VAKULSKY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 856–856

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Pavel VAKULSKY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-30445.
D.C. No. CR-00-00415-MA.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 4, 2002.
Decided Nov. 18, 2002.
Before REAVLEY, KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Any evidentiary or constitutional error that the district court may have committed was harmless. The only result was a change in the order of testimony, and that change had no conceivable effect on Vakulsky's substantial rights. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a). Even if Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), does not itself require Vakulsky to show prejudice, his failure to raise the issue at trial does. See United States v. Vonn, 294 F.3d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir.2002). He has not done so.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.