to grant a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d at 1334. “The district court is in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial effe elicit a repetition of the statement when he again asked Jasmin what he had told Miller about why Miller should not go with Danny Glover. While this may have been improper, the district court prevented Jasmin from answering, sustained an objection, and offered to give a limiting instruction to the jury. In any event, Miller has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that this statement changed the outcome of the trial. Given the remainder of Jasmin’s properly admitted testimony about Miller’s involvement in a drug conspiracy, this statement added nothing to the government’s case. See Emmanuel, 565 F.3d at 1334-35 (<HOLDING>). The district court, which was in the best
holding that the purpose of the credit statute is to provide credit for confinement    where 1 bail has been set for the defendant and 2 the defendant was financially unable to post the bail holding that where the defendant was in default the district court correctly accepted the fact allegations of the complaint as true holding that a mistrial was not warranted because the statement that the defendant had been in prison before was volunteered unexpected and added nothing to the governments case holding that the court correctly denied a mistrial when the statement that the witness saw the defendant when the defendant was signing in as a condition of bail was brief and added nothing to the governments case holding that statement that declarant saw defendant outside was admissible under rule 8081 because the statement explained an event or condition