United States v. Paul Ho

43 F.3d 1480 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Paul HO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50814. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 7, 1994. * Decided Dec. 14, 1994. 1 Before: FARRIS, POOLE, and KOZINSKI Circuit Judges. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Ho appeals from his conviction for conspiracy and possession of counterfeited securities. He contends that the district court erred in restricting his ability to present extrinsic evidence of a government witness' prior inconsistent statements. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm. 4 An error at trial will not result in reversal if the government shows that the error more probably than not was harmless. United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1415 (9th Cir.1993). 5 Hynh was expected to testify to post-arrest statements made by Dang while they were incarcerated together, although it is not entirely clear exactly what Hynh's testimony…