United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10599

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Paul Garza, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-374-1

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Following a jury trial, Paul Garza was convicted of conspiracy to 

possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and possession of 

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and was sentenced to 300 

months of imprisonment. He now appeals.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10599 Document: 00516143462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-10599

2

Garza first argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion for a continuance to substitute retained counsel for 

appointed counsel. He complains that the denial forced him to proceed to 

trial without counsel of his choice, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. 

We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for an abuse of 

discretion that seriously prejudices the defendant. See United States 

v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009). The totality of the 

circumstances here, with consideration of fairness factors, demonstrates that 

the district court’s denial of the motion for a continuance was neither 

arbitrary nor unreasonable. See id.; see also United States v. Neba, 901 F.3d 

260, 265 (5th Cir. 2018). Significantly, Garza’s request was not made until 

after voir dire was completed, he offered no reason for replacing counsel or 

for his delay, and he has not shown that he was seriously prejudiced by the 

denial of his request. See Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439; United States v. Barnett, 

197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 

U.S. 140, 152 (2006); United States v. Silva, 611 F.2d 78, 79 (5th Cir. 1980).

He therefore fails to show an abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. 

See Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439. 

Next, Garza asserts that the district court erred in failing to require 

the Government to disclose the identity of its confidential source (CS) and 

that the admission of testimony about the CS violated his Sixth Amendment 

confrontation rights. Because he did not raise the issue in the district court, 

review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009); see also United States v. Smith, 822 F.3d 755, 761 (5th Cir. 2016); 

United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1992). Under the plain 

error standard, Garza must show an error that is clear or obvious and that 

affects his substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he makes such a 

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it 

Case: 20-10599 Document: 00516143462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-10599

3

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See id. 

Garza fails to demonstrate any clear or obvious error in connection 

with his Sixth Amendment claim because, although he complains globally 

about Special Agent Koenig’s testimony referencing information provided by 

the CS, he points to no specific out-of-court testimonial statements by the 

CS that were improperly admitted at trial in violation of his confrontation 

rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 

36, 53-54 (2004). Because he fails to cite any authority in support of his claim 

that the district court should have sua sponte ordered the disclosure of the 

CS’s identity, Garza similarly fails to show clear or obvious error in 

connection with the court’s failure to do so. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; see 

also United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010). The claim fails 

for the additional reason that Garza makes no attempt to show that the 

district court’s alleged error affected his substantial rights. See MolinaMartinez v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016); Puckett, 

556 U.S. at 135; see also United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 

2010).

For the first time on appeal, Garza also challenges the search of his 

bedroom as violative of the Fourth Amendment. Because he did not file 

a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) motion to suppress in the 

district court, review of the claim is likewise limited to plain error. See United 

States v. Vasquez, 899 F.3d 363, 372-73 (5th Cir. 2018). 

The record establishes that the officers’ entry into and protective 

sweep of Garza’s sister’s home was valid both because they had a reasonable 

suspicion to believe the arrest warrant could be executed there and because 

the owner gave consent for them to enter. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 

325, 327, 334 (1990); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). 

Case: 20-10599 Document: 00516143462 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-10599

4

Because officers immediately observed evidence of drugs in plain view giving 

rise to probable cause for a search warrant, and because officers did not 

search the residence until the search warrant was obtained, there was no 

Fourth Amendment violation. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 327; see also United States 

v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2005) (explaining plain view 

doctrine). Consequently, Garza fails to show that the admission of the 

evidence ultimately uncovered in his room was error, plain or otherwise. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Garza additionally complains that the district court erred in accepting 

the Presentence Report’s drug-quantity finding and assessment of a twolevel firearms enhancement, which he asserts were not supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence. However, because his argument “does not 

extend beyond [a] conclusory assertion,” the sentencing challenges are

deemed abandoned. Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 321 n.1 (5th 

Cir. 2007); see also Nicholas Acoustics & Specialty Co. v. H & M Const. Co., 695 

F.2d 839, 846-47 (5th Cir. 1983); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). 

Finally, Garza asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in numerous 

ways. He did not raise these claims before the district court, and the record 

does not provide sufficient detail to allow the court to assess counsel’s 

effectiveness at this stage. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th 

Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we decline to consider these claims without 

prejudice to their being raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See id.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-10599 Document: 00516143462 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/23/2021