
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Veronica CRUZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30210.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
    Michael J. Fica, Assistant U.S., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leo Griffard, Leo N. Griffard, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Susan H. Black, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Veronica Cruz-Jimenez (Cruz-Jimenez) challenges her conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Cruz-Jimenez asserts that a new trial is warranted because the district court improperly admitted a non-testifying co-conspirator’s statement regarding Cruz-Jimenez’s involvement in the conspiracy.

The district court properly admitted the co-conspirator’s statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because Cruz-Jimenez actively participated in the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Bridgeforth, 441 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.2006). Because the statement was admissible as a co-conspirator statement, Cruz-Jimenez’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated. See id. at 868-69.

Even if the district court erred in admitting the statement, any error was harmless given the substantial evidence of Cruz-Jimenez’s involvement in the conspiracy. See United States v. Hardy, 289 F.3d 608, 613 (9th Cir.2002), as amended; see also United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     