United States v. Artem B. David

983 F.2d 1078 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artem B. DAVID, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10481. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 15, 1992. Decided Jan. 11, 1993. Before GOODWIN, O'SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Artem David ("David") appeals his conviction for operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise ("CCE"), 21 U.S.C. § 848 , and his sentence to life imprisonment. We affirm. TRIAL PHASE 3 * David argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for two witnesses, Mark Stennis ("Stennis") and Sonny Puerto ("Puerto"). During direct examination, the prosecutor elicited testimony from both witnesses to the effect that their plea agreements required them to testify truthfully. In addition, the prosecutor elicited testimony from Puerto that he understood that false testimony could result in perjury charges. 4 Because David failed to object to the…