Miguel Angel Navarro appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to commit hostage taking and one count of hostage taking for which he was sentenced to 408 months of imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. He contends that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument improperly shifted the burden of proof to him.

Review is for plain error since Navarro did not object in the district court. See United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276, 292 (5th Cir. 2001). During closing argument, the prosecutor commented that defense counsel had not asked any questions of the victim’s brother, and, therefore, his testimony regarding Navarro’s motive for committing the kidnapping was unchallenged. These comments did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to Navarro because they were responsive to defense counsel’s closing argument that there was another motive for the kidnapping. See id. Even if the prosecutor’s comments constitute error, they do not constitute plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Finally, the prosecutor’s comments did not affect Navarro’s substantial rights or “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The prosecutor did not state that Navarro had an obligation to cross-examine any witness or present evidence, and several witnesses implicated Navarro in the kidnapping. See Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d at 292-93.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.