FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10235
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00011-RLH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GREGORY WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 10-10235