Corniel-Reyes

MEMORANDUM *

Fernando Corniel-Reyes (“CornielReyes”) appeals his conviction for Attempted Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute and Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance. We affirm, finding that any trial errors were harmless.

*125 Because defense counsel did not object at trial to the prosecutor’s questioning, we review for plain error. United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.1999). “Plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.” United States v. Rudberg, 122 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir.1997). Reversal is proper “only if ... the impropriety seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, or where failing to reverse a conviction would result in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564, 568 (9th Cir.2004). In applying the plain error standard, we “consider all circumstances at trial including the strength of the evidence against the defendant.” Rudberg, 122 F.3d at 1206 (quoting United States v. Chambers, 918 F.2d 1455, 1459 (9th Cir.1990)).

The prosecutor’s questioning of Corniel-Reyes constituted error. In both United States v. Geston, 299…

dissenting.

I agree with the majority that the prosecutor’s questioning of Corniel-Reyes and his vouching for Campusano both constituted error. 1 I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that these errors do not warrant reversal.

Notwithstanding the majority’s assertion that “the government presented substantial, independent evidence of guilt,” Maj. op. at-, the record here clearly establishes that “[t]his case was a close one” in which “witness credibility was paramount.” United States v. Geston, 299 F.3d 1130, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2002). Indeed, all of the evidence cited by the majority demonstrates the extent to which “the case boiled down to whether the jury believed” Corniel-Reyes or Campusano. United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564, 573 (9th Cir.2004). First, as regards the Kansas traffic stop, Corniel-Reyes testified that he did not know that money was hidden in the car. 2 Second, as to driving the Mercedes to Las Vegas, Corniel-Reyes testified that he did not know that the car was to serve as collateral for a drug transaction. Third, the significance of Campusano’s testimony about Corniel-Reyes’ alleged drug traf *127 ficking depended entirely on whether the jury…