Ivester

MEMORANDUM *

Ivester appeals his conviction and sentence for drug offenses. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . We affirm.

We addressed Ivester’s arguments relating to the district court’s handling of the jury security problem in a separate published opinion. We dispose of his remaining arguments in this unpublished disposition.

In its opening statement, the government referred to the expected testimony of Agatonu. When Agatonu failed to testify, Ivester moved for a mistrial. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ivester’s motion unless the denial resulted in “a serious possibility of prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Monks, 774 F.2d 945, 955 (9th Cir.1985) (citation omitted). Here, there was no such possibility of prejudice because the district court instructed the jury that opening statements are not evidence. Id.

Ivester also contends that Detective Lenchanko’s testimony about Agotanu’s cooperation with the government improperly bolstered or vouched for Agotanu’s anticipated testimony. Lenchanko neither…