regarding what the confidential informant told Small about Aguirre-Ganceda being a drug dealer. Where testimonial statements are at issue, the Sixth Amendment mandates a right of confrontation. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). However, any Sixth Amendment violation is subject to harmless error analysis. See United States v. Blandin, 435 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2006). An error is harmless if the defendant suffers no prejudice as a result of the error. Id. Aguirre-Ganceda suffered no prejudice from the testimony regarding the confidential informant’s description of him as a drug dealer because of the plenitude of other evidence presented to justify that description. See United States v. Allen, 425 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 3. As Aguirre-Ganceda was sentenced to the
holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is insignificant by comparison holding that even if the statements were improperly admitted any error was harmless since there was overwhelming evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt