Armstrong

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Robert Armstrong appeals his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and one count of distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Defendant Rudolfo Velazquez, Armstrong’s co-conspirator, appeals his conviction stemming from the same conspiracy, along with the terms of his supervised release imposed as a result of a separate conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. Armstrong

Armstrong argues that the district court erred in refusing to give his proposed theory of defense instruction. While “a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor,” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), Armstrong’s proposed instruction was a closing argument rather than an instruction on a recognized defense. The district court’s instructions fairly and adequately covered the issues presented and were not erroneous.

Armstrong also argues that the district court erred when…