United States v. Dennis Mahon

MEMORANDUM

Dennis Mahon appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 844 (i) and (n) and § 842(p)(2)(A). In a separate published opinion, we consider whether the evidence at trial satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of § 844(i). Here, we consider Ma-hon’s remaining nine claims and conclude that there is no basis for reversal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, the district court did not err when it restricted cross examination on the informant’s work at an escort service. “[Tjhere were other legitimate interests outweighing the defendant’s interest” in examining the nature of her work and, despite the restriction, there was sufficient information for the jury to assess the informant’s credibility. United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Bonanno, 852 F.2d 434, 439 (9th Cir.1988) (repeated questioning on witness’s bias, motive to testify, and cooperation as an informant satisfied constitutional requirements).

Second, any error resulting from the district court’s suppression of the informant’s tax returns did not result in a confrontation clause violation, as the…