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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2016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