Saldana

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Saldana appeals his jury conviction and consequent 24-month sentence imposed for importing two kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Saldana contends that the district court erred by excluding certain post-arrest statements he made to the investigating agent and limiting cross-examination of the agent regarding those statements, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We review for abuse of discretion the exclusion of evidence under the hearsay rule, United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 767 (9th Cir.1995), amended by 98 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.1996), as well as a limitation on the scope of cross examination, United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1986). The district court did not abuse its discretion because a defendant’s non self-inculpatory post-arrest statements to police officers are inadmissable hearsay unless they are offered against him by the prosecutor. See United States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 682-83 (9th Cir.2000). It follows that…