Pounpanya

*745 MEMORANDUM **

Ratsmy Pounpanya appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), contending that the district court denied him a fair trial by improperly commenting on a witness’s testimony when it explained its ruling sustaining the government’s objection to cross examination by defense counsel. We affirm.

The district court correctly sustained the government’s objection to Pounpanya’s cross examination of DEA Agent Lawson, because Pounpanya’s question to the agent did not accurately characterize the testimony of Hong Tran regarding the amounts of methamphetamine Tran had historically purchased for personal use. See generally United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion.) When defense counsel asked the court to provide the basis for its ruling, the court reasonably and accurately explained why defense counsel’s question was improper. The comments by the court to defense counsel “were neither calculated to disparage [the defendant] in the eyes of the jury, nor likely to affect the outcome of the trial.” United States v.…