Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RIVERA-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-06
Citations: 692 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 15-50204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RIVERA-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 428–431

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RIVERA-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50204
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed June 6, 2017
Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd W. Burns, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The prosecution did hot commit misconduct by stating during closing argument that the bloody rocks were located further up the trail from where Arturo Rivera-Gallegos first encountered Agent Juan Ambriz. Rivera contends that the prosecution committed misconduct by making that statement without having an adequate evidentiary basis for doing so. We disagree. A Border Patrol agent testified at trial that the bloody rocks were located up the trail from where Agent Ambriz first encountered Rivera. That testimony provided adequate evidentiary support for the prosecution's argument. See United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997).
2. The prosecution did not sandbag Rivera by raising this argument for the first time during its rebuttal closing argument. During Rivera's closing argument, his counsel argued that the jury should return a not guilty verdict if it believed Rivera's account that he turned to run away after seeing Agent Ambriz. The prosecution permissibly responded to that argument during rebuttal by explaining why the evidence contradicted Rivera's account. See United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 494-95 (9th Cir. 1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.