context: In light of our holding that Breeland's sawed-off shotgun met the definition of firearm in 26 U.S.C. SS 5845(a)(2), the Government's proof that Breeland possessed an unregistered firearm was overwhelming. Consequently, we hold that the Government's statements, even if improper, were harmless.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 43 F.3d 117, 124
citation_a.parenthetical: "To warrant reversal of a conviction, prosecutorial misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it casts serious doubts upon the correctness of the jury's verdict."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 511-12, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1982, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 124 (5th Cir.1995) (“To warrant reversal of a conviction, prosecutorial misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it casts serious doubts upon the correctness of the jury’s verdict.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 511-12, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1982, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 124 (5th Cir.1995) (“To warrant reversal of a conviction, prosecutorial misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it casts serious doubts upon the correctness of the jury’s verdict.”).