and the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. We reject all three arguments. Agent Sandberg interviewed Herrera after she was arrested. He took rough notes during the interrogation and later compiled a report based on those rough notes. The government gave a copy of the report to Herrera, but did not turn over Agent Sandberg’s rough notes. Under the facts of this case, any error in failing to turn over the rough interview notes would have been harmless because Herrera did not allege that the final police report misrepresented or omitted her statements, nor that it attributed to her any statement she did not make. See Fed.R.Cr.Proc. 16(a)(1)(A) (requiring disclosure of “substance of any relevant oral statement made by the defendant”); United States v. Griffin, 659 F.2d 932, 938 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Herrera did not raise a color-able
holding that defendants remarks cannot be a statement for jencks act purposes when the agent testifies as a government witness because it does not represent the agents own words holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes holding that an fbi agents notes were not a witness statement within the act because there was no evidence that the witness adopted or approved what was recorded holding that when a law enforcement officer testifies using technical terms but based on his personal knowledge of a relevant investigation the officer testifies as a lay witness holding that the governments late disclosure of a statement by a government witness did not require reversal under the jencks act where the defendants were allowed a second chance to crossexamine the witness