Lizarraga-Cedano

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Lizarraga-Cedano appeals from his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Lizarraga-Cedano argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. However, he fails to detail the elements of the crime he believes were not established. The government points to myriad evidence to support the conviction, including drug packaging paraphernalia with cocaine residue that was found in the search of the Bismark residence. Based on the evidence, we conclude that a “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Edmonds, 103 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir.1996).

Lizarraga-Cedano next asserts that the prosecution engaged in misconduct in two ways. First, he contends that *588 the district court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask two witnesses whether each had testified truthfully. Assuming, without deciding, that this constituted vouching, the district court cured the error by stating in response to one instance that “[t]he ultimate determination of the…