MEMORANDUM
Mario Ruiz-Palma appeals from his conviction following a jury trial for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Government concedes error with regard to certain testimony and statements in closing argument that referred to Ruiz-Palma’s post-arrest silence, but it contends such error was harmless. We assume that Ruiz-Palma’s claim of error was preserved but conclude that it is “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The evidence overwhelmingly established Ruiz-Palma’s guilt. Cf. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (unprovoked, headlong flight upon noticing law enforcement suggests wrongdoing); Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 373, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (drug activity in a car is an enterprise to which a guilty person “would be unlikely to admit an innocent person -with the potential to furnish evidence against him”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.