Hara

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Manuel Hara (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). The facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. In arguing for reversal, Appellant makes three broad types of arguments: evidentiary and trial management arguments, constitutional arguments, and a new trial argument.

First, Appellant raises a series of evidentiary and trial management issues. Where Appellant raised similar objections below, we review the district court’s rulings for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mateo-Mendez, 215 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.2000) (evidentiary issues generally subject to abuse of discretion review); United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (denial of a motion for a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Where Appellant failed to raise a similar objection below, review is for plain error. See…