United States v. Raymond Ghaloustian

introduction of the records themselves, asserting lack of relevance. We therefore

1 Ghaloustian also argues that the alleged Miranda errors compelled him to testify. See Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 223–25 (1968). We decline to consider this issue because it was raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003).

3 review his arguments regarding prejudice for plain error, see United States v.

Rusnak, 981 F.3d 697, 707 (9th Cir. 2020), find none, and reject his relevance-related

arguments. The government may introduce records of prior convictions unless the

defendant offers to stipulate to being a prohibited possessor. See Old Chief v. United

States, 519 U.S. 172, 174 (1997). Ghaloustian did not so offer. Moreover, the

district court instructed the jury that the records of prior convictions could be

considered only to establish that Ghaloustian was a prohibited possessor, and none

of the convictions involved conduct similar to the subject of the current charges.

3. Ghaloustian cannot on appeal contend that the district court erred in

excluding two recordings in which third parties allegedly…