USA v. Juan Anguino-Adriano

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50110 Affirmed ] Judge: HRD , Judge: CES , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 01/05/2011 for Appellant Juan Antonio Anguino-Adriano [10-50110]

USA v. Juan Anguino-Adriano Case: 10-50110

Document: 00511322609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50110 S u m m a r y Calendar December 15, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. J U A N ANTONIO ANGUINO-ADRIANO, 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 Western District of Texas U S D C No. 2:09-CR-252-3

B e fo r e DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J u a n Antonio Anguino-Adriano (Anguino) appeals his conviction of c o n s p ir a c y to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of m a r ij u a n a and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of m a r iju a n a . He was sentenced to 66 months of imprisonment. A n g u in o argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to a s k potential jurors during voir dire about the possibility of ethnic bias. He

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50110 Document: 00511322609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2010 No. 10-50110 a r g u e s that because Del Rio, Texas, is a border community, there is a reasonable p r o b a b ilit y of ethnic bias. T h e district court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire. The r e c o r d reflects that the district court included questions that were sufficient "to p r o d u c e some basis for defense counsel to exercise a reasonably knowledgeable r ig h t of challenge." See United States v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d 1170, 1176 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e district court did not violate the Constitution when it declined to ask t h e questions proposed by Anguino. See Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 1 8 2 , 189 (1981). There was no racial or ethnic issue "inextricably bound up with t h e conduct of the trial." See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 597 (1976). Nor did t h e district court's decision run afoul of the rule set out as part of the Supreme C o u r t 's supervisory authority. See Rosales-Lopez, 451 U.S. at 192. Nothing in t h is record indicates a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice a ffe c t e d the jury. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2