United States v. Michael Salas
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eric SALAS, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Atsushi W. Tashima (author), Smith, Barry G. Silverman
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50359 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00719-BAS v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL ERIC SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Eric Salas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction for assault on a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Salas claims that the prosecutor committed two instances of misconduct during closing arguments. First, he contends that the prosecutor improperly disparaged defense counsel by stating that the defense’s focus on the sequence of events surrounding the incident was “the classic lawyer thing” designed to “muddy up the water” and show the jury a “red herring.” We review for harmless error, see United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. The prosecutor’s comments properly “attacked the strength of the defense on the merits, not the integrity of defense counsel.” United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d 1065, 1079 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Second, Salas contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the Border Patrol agents by stating that they acted “quite logically” and “wisely” during their interaction with Salas. We review for plain error, see Ruiz, 710 F.3d at 1082, and find none. The challenged statements were not comments on the agents’
credibility. Rather, the prosecutor was arguing that the agents acted reasonably in detaining Salas, which was an issue at trial. Finally, because we find no individual instances of misconduct, we reject Salas’s contention that the challenged statements resulted in cumulative error warranting reversal. See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50359