Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40327/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40327-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Juan Manuel Reyes Vasquez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40327

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL REYES VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-634

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Reyes Vasquez appeals his convictions for conspiracy and 

the substantive offense of possession with intent to distribute heroin for which 

he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 121 months of imprisonment. He 

contends that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument improperly 

commented on his failure to testify in his own defense and improperly shifted 

the burden of proof to him.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40327 Document: 00513442881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2016
No. 15-40327

2

Review is for plain error since Reyes Vasquez 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 the evidence that 

Reyes Vasquez’s voice was on the recorded conversations was unrefuted. These 

comments did not impermissibly comment on Reyes Vasquez’s silence or shift 

the burden of proof to Reyes Vasquez because they were responsive to defense 

counsel’s closing argument that the evidence of the phone calls and voice 

identification involved no specific training or scientific methods or a voice 

comparison. See Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d at 293-93. Viewing the prosecutor’s 

comments in context and in light of the jury instructions, the jury would not 

“naturally and necessarily” interpret the challenged remarks as a comment on 

the defendant’s failure to testify or an impermissible shifting of the burden of 

proof. See Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d at 292-93; see also United States v. 

Jefferson, 258 F.3d 405, 414 (5th Cir. 2001).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40327 Document: 00513442881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2016