Burgess

MEMORANDUM *

The district court’s admission of a tape recording and transcript referring to defendant Burgess’s bad acts was not an abuse of discretion. Any prejudice arising from the tape and transcript did not substantially outweigh their probative value, and the district court issued a limiting instruction on evidence of other acts. See Fed.R.Evid. 403; United States v. Plancarte-Alvarez, 366 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2004). Because the tape and transcript were admissible, the government’s introduction of the tape did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct, outrageous governmental conduct, or conduct offending judicial integrity. The testimony to which Burgess objects was in fact elicited by his own counsel, not by the prosecution, and thus does not implicate any misconduct on the part of the government. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow counsel for Burgess to ask leading questions on direct examination of informant Perry. Nor did the government’s failure to disclose Perry’s notes of his meetings with Burgess violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), as Burgess has not demonstrated how Perry’s…