Brooks

MEMORANDUM *

Steven Bernard Brooks (Brooks) appeals from his convictions and sentence for distributing crystal methamphetamine and conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdic *643 tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

Brooks challenges the district court’s decision to allow the government to ask witness Tracy Spencer whether he previously had told government agents that he knew Wong got his “ice” from Brooks. While Brooks concedes that Spencer’s statements were admissible in order to impeach Spencer’s credibility, see United States v. Bao, 189 F.3d 860, 865-66 (9th Cir.1999), he argues the district court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to give a limiting instruction. However, in light of the other evidence presented at trial, Brooks fails to meet his burden of showing that any such error “affect[ed] [his] substantial rights.” United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.1993). Here, as in Armijo , there was more than sufficient evidence, aside from Spencer’s prior written statements, from which the jury could conclude that Brooks was Wong’s supplier,…