Pisciotta

MEMORANDUM **

1. The evidence against Pisciotta was sufficient to support conviction. The jury was free to disbelieve Pisciotta’s exculpatory testimony, see United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1328 (9th Cir.1992), and to believe government witness Moores instead, see United States v. Quintero-Barraza, 78 F.3d 1344, 1352 (9th Cir.1995). The jury’s refusal to credit Pisciotta’s testimony was supported by other evidence, such as the seized drugs and the records of frequent phone calls between Pisciotta’s wife and Moores. Cf. United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.1980), overruled on other grounds, United States v. De Bright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).

2. The district court did not commit plain error by admitting evidence that Pisciotta’s prior drug trafficking convictions involved seizure of firearms. Because Pisciotta “was indicted for conspiracy to possess and distribute narcotics, the firearms can be relevant to show his involvement in the narcotics trade.” United States v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987). Pisciotta did not ask the court to consider whether the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative…