it in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we hold that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Breeland’s weapon was (1) “made from a shotgun,” and (2) shorter than the dimensions provided in § 5845(a)(2),' thereby satisfying the definition of a firearm in the National Firearms Act. C Breeland also argues that the Government made improper statements in its closing argument. In light of our holding that Breeland’s sawed-off shotgun met the definition of firearm in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(2), the Government’s proof that Breeland possessed an unregistered firearm was overwhelming. Consequently, we hold that the Government’s statements, even if improper, were harmless. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 511-12, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1982, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding doyle violations harmless where evidence of guilt overwhelming