SUMMARY ORDER Donald Gatlin appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, on federal drug charges. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Even if we assume, arguendo, that the testimony at issue here was improperly admitted, we do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Gatlin’s motion for a mistrial. “A district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v.
Rodriguez, 587 F.3d 573, 583 (2d Cir.2009). “Courts have the power to declare a mistrial whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated,” United States v. Klein, 582 F.2d 186, 190 (2d Cir.1978) (omission in original) (internal quotation mark omitted). Gatlin, however, provides no reason to think that the allegedly improper testimony at issue required a mistrial in light of the substantial evidence of guilt cited by the government.
The district court’s specific instruction to the jury to “disregard” Agent Marchetti’s “opinion” that Gatlin had in fact “consummate[d] a drug transaction” on April 3, 2009, only adds further support to this conclusion. See United States v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692, 695 (2d Cir.1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.