an employee at the Storage Deluxe warehouse that was robbed on October 7, 2007, explicitly testified that he recognized the pictures of Ballard and his co-defendant from the robbery itself: Q: And what does your signature represent on 22 and 23? A: The people who looked familiar to me. Q: Familiar in what way, sir? A: Familiar to the people who robbed me at the store. Finally, even if it was error to admit identification evidence based on the photo arrays, the error was in all likelihood harmless due to the number of other eyewitnesses who identified Ballard in court. In other words, the Government’s case did not rely solely on Altragracia or the other witnesses who identified Ballard after viewing the photo arrays. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 217 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that there is no merit
holding that erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where it had no substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury verdict judged in relation to the total evidence on the issue in question internal quotation marks omitted holding that an erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless the error had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves this court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect holding with respect to a general motion for directed verdict that it raised the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence on venue an essential part of the governments case internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict