931 F.2d 899
Unpublished Disposition
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Richard WESSON, Defendant/Appellant.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
No. 90-10025.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 1990*.
Decided May 8, 1991.
Before SKOPIL and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, District Judge.**
MEMORANDUM***
Richard Wesson, (hereinafter "Wesson") appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). Wesson argues that the district court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial based on his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, he contends that during the trial the prosecutor improperly referred to Wesson's prior conviction for a drug-related offense and also improperly referred to certain explosives found with the cocaine for which Wesson was prosecuted. The trial court promptly credited Wesson's objections and directed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comments. The trial court also instructed the jury that an attorney's comments are not evidence. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to decide whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred, because we are satisfied that Wesson was not prejudiced and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. See United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1538-39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988).
Wesson next argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between Wesson and the cocaine found at the apartment where he was staying. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support an inference that Wesson possessed enough cocaine to establish a commercial quantity and to permit an inference that he intended to distribute it. See United States v. Walitwarangkul, 808 F.2d 1352, 1353-54, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). We are satisfied that a reasonable jury could find Wesson guilty of each of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3