Case ID: f-appx_211/html/0922-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Alvear URIBE, a.k.a. Primazo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-13025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 22, 2006.
    Timothy R. Saviello, Stephanie Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    William H. Thomas, Jr., Richard A. Rice, Jr., Amy Levin Weil, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District Of Georgia, Jenny R. Turner, Atlanta, GA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HODGES, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant/Appellant Jesus Alvear Uribe (“Uribe”) appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine and methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(l)(A)(ii), 841(b)(l)(A)(vii), 846, and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. There are three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court committed plain error in admitting into evidence government-produced English transcripts of Spanish telephone conversations containing handwritten notations identifying Uribe as a speaker in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion for a mistrial when a witness for the government stated on direct examination that he was reluctant to testify because he feared that someone would harm his family; and (3) whether the district court erred in attributing to Uribe for sentencing purposes a quantity of drugs seized at a location where Uribe was never seen.

After carefully considering the briefs, reviewing the record on appeal, and hearing oral argument, we find no error on the part of the district court as to any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm Uribe’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.