### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50846 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FERNANDO SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-106-2

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury found Fernando Salgado guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute heroin, and the district court sentenced him to 210 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Salgado contends that the district court erred in its presentation of the jury instructions. As he concedes, he did not object to the instructions, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Bohuchot , 625 F.3d 892, 897 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Betancourt , 586 F.3d 303, 305-06 (5th Cir. 2009). Salgado U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 19, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50846 Document: 00512057268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2012No. 11-50846

thus must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but will do so

o n ly if it affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of jud i c i a l proceedings. See id. In his first ground for relief, Salgado con t e nds that the district court constructively amended the in d i c t m e n t b y f a i l i n g t o l i m i t t h e jury’s consideration to the three defendants named in the indictment, which permitted the jurors to consider the possible participation of other individuals in the conspiracy. He has not established a clear or obvious error arising from the court’s instructions on

a conspiracy. See U

n i t e d S t ates v. Leahy , 82 F.3d 624, 630-31 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover, Salgado has not established “that the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” United States v
. D o m i ng u ez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Although Salgado also asserts that the jury should h a ve been instructed about the possibility of multiple conspiracies, he has not established that the district court’s failure to give such an instruction affected his substantial rights. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Morris , 46 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 1995 ). Salgado maintains that the district court shou l d have sua sponte instructed the jury that they could ha v e found him guilty of conspiracy to possess heroin, which is a lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. The indictment charged him wit h conspiring to distribute and to possess w i t h intent to distribute; Salgado concedes that conspiracy to possess narcotics is not a lesser included offense of conspiracy to distr ibute. Although the district court advised the jury that it must unanimously find one of the conspiracy objectives, nothing in the record indicates which was found. Salgado therefore has not shown that the error had

an effect on the jury deliberations or the verdict, and he thus has not established plain error. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 200 5).
2 Case: 11-50846 Document: 00512057268 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2012No. 11-50846

In a d d itio n , S a lg a d o co n te n d s th a t th e d istrict co u rt sh o u l d h a v e in stru cte d th e ju ry a b o u t e x p e rt w itn e sse s a n d sh o u ld h a v e w a rn e d th e ju ry th a t D e te ctiv e M itch R u sse ll w a s te stify in g in a d u a l ro le a s a la y a n d a n e x p e rt

w it n e s s
. E v e n a ssu m in g th a t p o rtio n s o f D e te ctiv e R u sse ll’s te stim o n y ca n b e

co n sid e re d e x p e rt te stim o n y , g iv e n th a t th e a d m issib ility o f th e te stim o n y is n o t ch a lle n g e d ; th a t th e ju ry h e a rd o th e r e v id e n ce o f g u ilt, in clu d in g S a lg a d o ’s o w n

c o n flictin g sta te m e n ts a b o u t h is p a rticip a tio n in th e co n sp ira cy ; a n d th a t th e d istrict co u rt p ro p e rly in stru cte d th e ju r y t h a t i t co u ld a cce p t o r reje ct a n y te stim o n y a n d th a t it w a s th e so le ju d g e o f cre d ib ility o f th e w itn e sse s a n d th e

w e ig h t , i f a n y , to g iv e to e a ch w itn e ss’s te stim o n y , S a lg a d o h a s n o t d e m o n stra te d th a t th e fa ilu re to g iv e a n e x p e rt w itn e ss o r d u a l ro le in stru ctio n

a ffe cte d th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro ce e d in g s a n d th u s a ffe cte d h is su b sta n tia l rig h ts. S ee P u ck ett , 5 5 6 U .S

. a t 1 3 5

. F u rth e r, S a lg a d o h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e fa ilu re to g iv e a n e x p e rt w itn e ss o r d u a l ro le in stru ctio n in th e se circu m sta n ce s a ffe cts th e fa irn e ss, in te g rity , o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d icia l p ro ce e d in g s a s re q u ire d fo r re v e rsa l o n p la in e rro r. Id

. Salgado maintains that the district court should have provided a limiting instruction with respect to evidence of his gang affiliation. He does not challenge the introduction of the evidence. S a lgado has not shown that any clear or obvious e rror affected his substantial rights, in light of the instructions that

were provided. See Puckett , 556 U.S. 135; Zafiro v. United States , 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993). In his final ground for relief, Salgado asserts that the jury instructions as

a whole constituted a cumulative plain error. H e h a s n ot shown that the “coalescence of [plain] errors, if any, arising in this case” resulted in the denial of a fair trial. United States v. Munoz , 150 F. 3 d 4 0 1 , 418 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Salgad o has not shown reversible error, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-50846 Document: 00512057268 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2012