(6th Cir.2011); Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 535 (6th Cir.2000). The government presented evidence that each image was taken with the same camera as was found on the defendant at the border, was edited with the same software as was on the computers collected from the defendant at the border, and was stored on the computers found on the defendant at the border. It is worth noting in passing that the defendant did not present any evidence contesting ownership of the camera, the image editing software, or the computers, and did not argue that any other individuals had used the camera or the software to take or crop the images at issue. It was not an error for the prosecutor to argue the inference that the defendant had taken and cropped the images. See, e.g., Byrd, 209 F.3d at 535 (<HOLDING>). The defendant did object to the prosecutor’s
holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding prosecutors isolated argument referencing punishment was not improper because it was responsive to evidence in the record and was not intended to inflame the jury holding that the prosecutors inference that the shirt sleeve was bloody and involved in the crime because it was missing was not an error holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial