Lopez

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant raises four issues on appeal. First, Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after a government witness negatively commented on the Appellant’s credibility. We review the district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d 966, 981 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1220 , 120 S.Ct. 2230 , 147 L.Ed.2d 260 (2000). Because the testimo *785 ny in question was never admitted into evidence, we find that there was no error. Even if the testimony was somehow harmful to Appellant, however, any potential harmfulness was cured by the district court’s curative instruction. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial.

Appellant next argues that the district court erred by allowing testimony by an FBI agent as to specific instances of conduct affecting the Appellant’s credibility. “Evidentiary rulings ... are not reversible absent clear abuse of discretion, and this court cannot reverse absent some prejudice.” Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks…