United States v. Ivan Bugakov

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Ivan Bugakov appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his convictions for knowingly conveying false information regarding an alleged attempt to place a bomb on an airplane and a jet bridge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 35 (a) and 1992(a)(9). Buga-kov was .found guilty on four counts following a jury trial and sentenced principally to 3 years of probation. On appeal, Bugakov principally argues that a witness’s reference at trial to the so-called “underwear bomber,” which was immediately struck by the district judge, was so prejudicial as to entitle him to a new trial,’ and that the evidence cannot sustain his convictions. We affirm.

1. “We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial or new trial for abuse of discretion” and, in circumstances such as these, “will reverse only if, viewing [a witness’s] comment in the context of the entire trial, it is more probable than not that [it] materially affected the verdict.” United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944, 954 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also assume “that jurors follow their instructions.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95…