Henry

MEMORANDUM *

Mike Henry (“Henry”) appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute opium in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A district court’s order precluding testimony is an evidentiary ruling subject to review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ravel, 930 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting co-defendant Zadeh from testifying that Henry did not know about the drugs because Zadeh could not establish the requisite personal knowledge. Fed.R.Evid. 602. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in restricting Zadeh from testifying that the reason he turned himself in was his belief in Henry’s innocence. Zadeh’s belief in Henry’s innocence is irrelevant except to the extent that it is based on Henry’s lack of knowledge about the drugs. As we already noted, however, Zadeh could not testify as to Henry’s knowledge.

The limitations on Zadeh’s testimony did not violate Henry’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. To determine whether the exclusion of evidence violates a defendant’s rights, this court first considers…