USA v. Osvaldo Ceballos-Zuniga
Filing
511132336
USA v. Osvaldo Ceballos-Zuniga
Doc. 511132336
Case: 09-40587
Document: 00511132336
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/04/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40587 S u m m a r y Calendar June 4, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. O S V A L D O CEBALLOS-ZUNIGA, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t
A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:08-CR-616-1
B e fo r e BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* O s v a ld o Ceballos-Zuniga (Ceballos) has appealed his jury conviction of ille g a l reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ceballos a r g u e s that, under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. M a ss a ch u se t t s , 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), the district court's admission of a c e r tific a t e of nonexistence of record (CNR), to show that Ceballos had not applied fo r admission to the United States, violated his rights under the Confrontation C la u s e of the Sixth Amendment.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-40587
Document: 00511132336 Page: 2 No. 09-40587
Date Filed: 06/04/2010
A s Ceballos concedes, this court's review is for plain error. See United S ta t e s v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2010). Because there was a m p l e other evidence that Ceballos had not applied for admission to the United S t a te s , Ceballos cannot show that the district court's error in admitting the CNR a ffe c te d his substantial rights. See id. at 587. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?