Nayabkhil

MEMORANDUM *

Salma Nayabkhil appeals her conviction and sentence, after a jury trial, for two counts of procuring false documents in connection with naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Nayabkhil first argues that the district court violated her Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by limiting cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding his fear of losing his citizenship. We disagree. Because Nayabkhil failed to offer any evidence that supported her proposed line of inquiry, allowing the topic to be pursued could have planted an unfounded, and highly prejudicial, suspicion in the jury’s mind. United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1290 (9th Cir.1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring that Nayabkhil lay a foundation for her proposed line of inquiry.

Next Nayabkhil argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a prosecution witness’s prior stolen property conviction. This argument, too, is without merit. Nayabkhil did not object to the jury instruction at trial. Because the district court gave adequate instructions on each…