Felix

MEMORANDUM *

Felix Felipe appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial on two grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. We need not decide whether to apply harmless or plain error analysis to the first issue. 1 The Government satisfied the more stringent standard by showing that the error was “more probably than not harmless.”

In this case, the prosecutor accidentally used the defendant’s name when he was explaining a prosecution witness’s predicted testimony. 3 It was clear from the context of the mistake that the prosecutor was referring to his own witness. Furthermore, the district court effectively cured the misstatement by giving the jury a cautioning instruction. 4 The district court *883 also gave Felix the opportunity to provide additional instructions for curing the mistake, but Felix failed to do so. Accordingly, we hold that the misstatement was a harmless error, and the district court did not abuse its discretion 5 by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the misstatement.

We reject Appellant’s second argument as well.…