[DO NOT PUBLISH]

                        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                               FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                ________________________                  FILED
                                                                 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                       No. 10-10255                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                      AUGUST 27, 2010
                                   Non-Argument Calendar
                                                                        JOHN LEY
                                 ________________________
                                                                         CLERK

                            D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20530-DLG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                            versus


ANGEL TAMARIT,

lllllllllllllllllllll                                             Defendant-Appellant.

                                ________________________

                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the Southern District of Florida
                                ________________________

                                      (August 27, 2010)

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

         Angel Tamarit appeals his convictions for manufacturing and possessing
with intent to distribute less than 50 plants of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(D), maintaining a residence to manufacture and distribute marijuana, 

and carrying a firearm in relation to or in furtherance of trafficking in

marijuana, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Tamarit argues that the Double Jeopardy

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution barred a second trial after

his first trial ended in a mistrial and the government failed to prove that he carried

or possessed a firearm in relation to or in furtherance of his drug crime. We

affirm.

      “We ‘review de novo, as a pure question of law, any possible violation of

the Double Jeopardy Clause,’” United States v. McIntosh, 

, 1226

(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Thurston, 

, 1322 (11th

Cir. 2004)), and we examine findings of fact related to that issue for clear error,

United States v. Vallejo, 

, 1162 (11th Cir. 2002). We also review

de novo the denial of a judgment of acquittal, and we construe the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government. United States v. Demarest, 

, 1239 (11th Cir. 2009).

      The district court did not err when it ruled that Tamarit’s second trial was

not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Double jeopardy does not bar a retrial

unless the government “intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a

                                           2
mistrial.” Oregon v. Kennedy, 

, 676, 

, 2089 (1982).

Tamarit argues that the government intentionally violated a ruling in limine

prohibiting testimony about Tamarit’s prior “marijuana grows,” but the district

court found that the government “was negligent in” failing to “properly instruct[]

its witnesses and [was] careless in its questioning.” The record supports that

finding. The government interrupted its first witness before he could explain that

Tamarit had sold marijuana on another occasion. After a second witness stated

that Tamarit had “grown marijuana previously,” the government apologized and

asked for a curative instruction. The record does not suggest that “the

Government actually intended to provoke a mistrial.” United States v. Shelley,

, 1200 (11th Cir. 2005).

      The district court also did not err by denying Tamarit’s motion to acquit him

of his firearms charge. Agents seized from Tamarit’s waistband a pistol that was

fully loaded and had one bullet chambered, and Tamarit told agents that he carried

a pistol for “protection” and he “knew that either he was going to be robbed or the

police were going to show up at his house.” See United States v. Timmons, 

, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2002). The government proved Tamarit possessed

the gun “in furtherance of” or “in relation to” his marijuana operation.

      We AFFIRM Tamarit’s convictions.

                                          3