United States v. Brandon Hanly

MEMORANDUM

Brandon Hanly appeals from his jury conviction for wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Hanly argues that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Because Hanly did not object at trial, we review for plain error. Under plain error review, reversal is appropriate only if (1) there is an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Henderson v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1123 , 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). The prosecutor’s comments were not an attack on Hanly’s decision to present a defense, but rather an attack on the substance of the defense. See Williams v. Borg, 139 F.3d 737, 745 (9th Cir.1998) (“A lawyer is entitled to characterize an argument with an epithet as well as a rebuttal.”). Neither were the comments an attack on Hanly’s defense counsel. See United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2013). The prosecutor’s comments also were not calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. As…