Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-17
Citations: 422 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 10-10235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10235.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 17, 2011.
Roger Yang, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd M. Leventhal, Esquire, Special Counsel, Flangas and Leventhal, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Gregory Wilson appeals his jury-trial conviction and 240-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wilson contends his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process was violated, because the prosecutor's statement expressing concerns about whether a proposed defense witness had been provided an attorney to advise her of the consequences of perjurious testimony caused him not to call the witness. A review of the record shows no plain error where the prosecutor's brief, mildly worded statement was neither coercive nor intimidating, and did not interfere with the witness' decision whether to testify. See United States v. Jaeger, 538 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.1998) ("A defendant's constitutional rights are implicated only where the prosecutor or trial judge employs coercive or intimidating language or tactics that substantially interfere with a defense witness' decision whether to testify.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.