UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-50741
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN VALLE LUNA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court,
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-97-CR-36-1)
_________________________________________________________________
May 28, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In challenging his conviction for conspiracy and attempt to
possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, Ruben Valle Luna
mainains that three comments by the Assistant United States
Attorney (AUSA) during her closing argument (1) improperly impugned
his right to counsel, (2) interjected personal opinion, and (3)
bolstered the credibility of witnesses.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The comment giving rise to Luna’s impugning-his-right-to-
counsel contention does not support his argument. Cf. United
States v. McDonald, 620 F.2d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 1980) (prosecutor’s
comments giving rise to inferences of illegal or unethical acts by
defense counsel and of the idea that only the guilty need legal
assistance).
The AUSA’s alleged interjection of personal opinion was made
in rebuttal to Luna’s counsel’s argument that the Government showed
confusion; the AUSA’s comment did not affect Luna’s substantial
rights. See United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1367 (5th Cir.
1994).
Finally, Luna’s counsel did not object to the comments
concerning the credibility of witnesses, except for the comments
regarding credibility which were expressly tied to the above-
discussed issue of confusion. Our review of the comments, in the
context of the total rebuttal argument and the evidence adduced at
trial, reveals no plain error. See United States v. Vaccaro, 115
F.3d 1211, 1215-16 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 689
(1998); United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1460-61 (5th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED
2