in excluding testimony from Defendant about a particular conversation he had with Colon. The prior testimony was that Defendant and Colon had met, not that they had a particular conversation. The district court properly excluded the testimony as irrelevant. See United States v. Gonzalez-Rincon, 36 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 4. Because any error that occurred in this
holding that an appellate court can affirm a district courts order on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law including grounds upon which the district court did not rely recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court recognizing that the court of appeals can affirm a grant on summary judgment on any basis made apparent by the record