Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM **

Rodriguez argues that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecutor made inappropriate comments about unrelated criminal activities concerning one of his co-defendants. As Rodriguez readily admits, however, these comments “had absolutely no relevance, and bore no nexus” to him, nor did the prosecutor attempt to connect Rodriguez to these activities. The prosecutor’s comments did not “so infect[ ] [Rodriguez’s] trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Rodriguez also makes several arguments concerning the validity of his sentence, none of which require reversal. For purposes of sentencing, Rodriguez did not dispute that he had flown from Los Ange-les to Chicago in order to occupy a “stash house” where authorities found him in a garage with a co-defendant who was loading a car with over twice the amount of drugs necessary to trigger the highest base offense level under the guidelines. Considering that Rodriguez was not simply facilitating the shipment of a “small amount of drugs,” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,…