U.S. v. Vakulsky

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Pavel VAKULSKY…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2002

50 F. App'x 856 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

50 Fed.Appx. 856 (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Pavel VAKULSKY, Defendant--Appellant. No. 01-30445. D.C. No. CR-00-00415-MA. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 13, 2002

Submitted November 4, 2002. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REAVLEY, ^** KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

** The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^***

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Any evidentiary or constitutional error that the district court may have committed was harmless. The only result was a change in the order of testimony, and that change had no conceivable effect on Vakulsky's substantial rights. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Even if Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), does not itself require Vakulsky to show prejudice, his failure to raise the issue at trial does. See United States v. Vonn, 294 F.3d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir.2002). He has not done so.

AFFIRMED.