Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41317 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. M AR I O J ES US OB RE GON , D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C R

- 452- 1

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M a r io J e s u s O b r e g o n , a lo n gw ith m u ltip le co d e fe n d a n ts , w a s ch a r g e din
an i n di ct m en tw i t h cons p ira cy to ki dn ap an i n divi du ali n f orei gn com m erce, kidna pp i n g an i n divi du al i n f orei gn com m erce, an d ai di n g an d ab et t i n g t h e use o f a fir e a r m d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to acr im e o f v io le n c e . Aju r yco n v ic te dh im of t h e chargedo f

fen ses, an d h e w as sentenced to a tot alof 312 m on t h s of i m p ri son m en t an da five -yea r term of su p erv i sed releas e. H e n o w s ee k s to ap pe alhi s c o nvic t i o n. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 31, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 41317

2 O br e go n c o nt e nds t hat t he e vi de nc e w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h t hathe
c o ns pir e d t o ki dna p a n i ndivi dua li n fo r e i gn c o m m e r c e ort hathe kno w i ngly and i nt e nt i o nall y ki dna ppe d a n i ndivi dua li n f o r e i gn c o m m e r c e . H e a r gue s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntdi d no tpr o vebe yo nd a r e as o nab l e doub tt hathe ag r e e d t o ha vet he vi c t i m , M at eo E sq uivelV al i ent e Sol i s ( Sol i s) , res t r ai ned or m ove d unw i l l i ngl y, ort hath e der ived any par t i c ul arbenef i tf r om S oli s’ s det ent i on. H e a ss er t s t hat t he e vi de nc e e s t ab l i s he s t hat he m e r e l y w as pr e s e ntf o rt he e ve nt s s ur r o undi ng t h e ki dn ap pi n g an d that he did not vol u n t ari l y pa rt i ci pa t e i n t h e com m i ssi on of t h e cr i m e. B e c a u s e O b r e g o n m o v e dfo raju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le of C ri m i n alP rocedure 29 a tt h e cl ose of t h e G overnm en t ’ s c ase, an d h e renew ed t h e m ot i on at t h e cl ose of al lt h e evi den ce, w e con sid e r the evi den ce presented i n t he li ght m os t favor abl e t o t he G ove r nm ent t o det er m i ne w het hera r at i onal t ri er of factc o ul d ha vef

o und t he e s s e nt i ale l e m e nt s o f t he c r i m e b e yo nd a
r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Lo pez - Mor e no , 420 F. 3d 420, 437- 438 (5th C ir

. 20 0 5 ). W e res olve a l lrea son a b l e infere n ces a n dcred ib i l i ty de t e r m i nat i o ns i n s upp o r to f t he v e r di c ta nd d e t e r m i ne w he t he rt he j ur y m ad e ara tio n a l d e c is io n . S ee Uni t e d S t at e sv . No las c o - R o s as , 28 6 F

. 3 d76 2 , 76 5 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Un ite dS ta te sv . R e s io -Tr e jo , 4 5 F .3 d9 0 7 , 9 1 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). To pr o vea n o f

fe nse o f ki dna ppi ng pur s uantt o 1 8 U

. S. C. § 1 20 1, t he G overnm en tm u stest abli sh “( 1) t h e t ran sport ati on i n i n t erst ate c om m erce ( 2) of
an un consen t i n g person w h o i s ( 3) hel d f or r an so m o r r ew ard or ot h erw i se, (4) su ch a cts b ein g do n e k n ow i n gly a n dw i l l fully.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. B art on , 257 F. 3d 43 3, 43 9 ( 5th Ci r . 20 01 )

. A de fe nda ntm ayb e pun i s he d a s apr i nc i pa lif he ai ds or abets t h e com m i ssi on of an offe n se, i

. e. , O bregon m ay be con vi ct ed of kidna pp i n g i f

he associ ated w i t h t h e cr i m i n alven t u re, pu rposef u l l y pa rt i ci pa t ed i n t he c r i m e , and s o ugh t by hi s ac t i o ns f or i tt o suc c e e d. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Pan d o Fran co , 5 0 3 F .3d3 8 9 , 3 9 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 41317

3 To pro ve a c ons pi r ac y to k i d n ap, t he G ove r nm entm ustes t abl i sh that ( 1) an agreem en texi st ed betw een t w o or m ore peopl e t o pu rsue th e of fen se of k id n a p p in g , (2 ) th e d e fe n d a n t k n e w o f th e a g r e e m e n t, a n d(3 ) v o lu n ta r ily p a rticip a te dinth e co n sp ir a c y . 1 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 0 1 (c); Un i t ed S t ate s v. B an kst on 603 F

. 2d52 8 , 5 3 1 , 532

- 33 (5t h C i r. 197 9)

. “ [A] greem en tm ay be i n ferred f rom

‘ concertof acti on , [v] ol u n t ary pa rt i ci pa t i on m ay be i n ferred f rom a coll ocat i on of
c i r c um s t anc e s , a nd [k] no w l e dg e m ayb e i nfe r r e d f r o m s urr ou ndi ng cir c u m s ta n ces.’” Uni t e d St at e sv . Paul , 142 F. 3d 836, 840 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (cit ati on s om i t t ed). “T yp i cal l y, t h e sam e evi den ce w i l lsup port both a consp i racy a n d a n aidin g a n dab etti n g co n victi on . ” Uni t e d S t at e sv. Si ngh , 922 F. 2d 1169, 1 1 7 3 (5t h C ir.19 9 1 ). Vi e w i ng t he ev i de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he G o ve r nm e nt , a nd resolvi n g al lreasonab l e i n ferences and cr edibi l i t y determ i n ati on s i n sup port of t h e verdi ct , t h ere i s suff i ci en t evi den ce i n t h e rec ord t h at O bregon w as gu i l t y of bo t h c o ns pir ac y t o ki dna p a nd a i di ng and a bett i n g t he c o m m i s s i o n o f t he ki dna ppi ng. The r e c o r d c o nt ai ns e vi de nc e t hatO br e go n f r e e l y as s o c i at e d wi t h,
a n dw i l l i n gly p rom otedthe aim s of, a g rou p th a t co n fi n edS oli s an di n ten d edto tr a n s p o r t h im to M e x ic o . T h e r e c o r ds p e c ific a llys u p p o r ts t h a t O b r e g o n d ir e c tly faci l i t ated t h e ob j ect ives of t h e group by, i n t er al i a, au t h ori zi n g t h e detenti on of S ol i s a n d acti n g t o concealt h e group ’ s act ivi t i es af t er Sol i s w as t ran sport ed
u n w i l l i n gl y. Th e rec ord al so c on t ai n s evi den ce th at t h e kidna pp i n g w as devis ed t o pu n i sh S ol i s f

or perc eivedt ran sgress i on s agai n stO bregon a n d that O bregon h adsubstanti ali n f

l u en ce over w h e th e r S o l i s w as rel eased or detai n ed. Th u s, t he r ec or d s how s t hatO br ego n vol untar i l y af f i l i at ed hi m se l f w i t h a gr oup t hat
u n d e r to o ks p e c ific a c tio n s th a t O b r e g o n k n e w w o u ldca u s e S o lis ’ s d e te n tio n . S ee Pan d o Fran co , 5 0 3 F .3 da t 3 9 4 ; Paul , 142 F. 3d at840. O b r e g o n a ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e e v id e n c e w a s in s u ffic ie n t t o s u s t a in h is
c o n v i c t i o n o f

u s i n gaf

i r e a r m d u r i n ga n di n r e l a t i o n t o ac r i me o f v i o l e n c e . H e contend s th at th e G o v e rn m en tfai l ed to prove that he com m i t t ed a cri m e of Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 41317

4 v io le n c e (i.e ., e ith e rco n s p ir a c yto k id n a p o r k id n a p p in g), a n dh e th e r e fo r e co u ld
n ot be con victedof u sing af i rea rm i n relati on to t h ose cri m es. H e a l so a sse rts t ha t t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t h e a t a n y t i m e p o s s e s s e d a f i r e a r m , o rt hatt he
w eap on s present du ri n g t heki dna pping w e r eus ed i n conn ect i on w i t h t h at c ri m e. P u rsuan tto 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 924(c) ( 1) , “ an y person w h o, du ri n g an d i n rel ati on t o an y cri m e of vi ol en ce . . . uses or carri es a f i rearm , or w h o, i n f

u rt h eran ce of any s uc h c r i m e , po s s e s s e s a f i r e ar m , s hall , i n ad dit i o n t o t h e pun i s hm e nt pr o vi de d f

o r s uc h c r i m e o f vi o l e nc e , ” be s e nt e nc e d t o va r yi ng t e rm s of i m pr i s o nm e ntb as e d o n t he ki nd o f f i r e ar m o r t he na t ur e o f it s us e . Ki dna ppi ng and co nspir ac y t o ki dnap a r e c r i m es of vi ol enc e f or purpos es of

t he s t at ut e. 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ); Uni t e d St at e sv . Phi pps , 3 1 9 F .3d1 7 7 , 1 8 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). U n der P i n kert on v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 328 U

. S

. 640 ( 194 6) , “ a pa rt y t o a conspi racy
m ay be h el d respon sibl e f or a s u bstantive of

fen se c om m i t t ed bya coc on spi rat or i n f urt her anceof

a c ons pi r ac y, ev en if thatpart y does n otpar t i c i pat e i n orhave
a n y kn ow l ed ge of th e su b stan tive off en se.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jen sen , 41 F. 3d 946, 955

- 56 (5t h C i r. 199 4) (cit ati on an d i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om itted ). F or a defenda n tt o be convi ct ed of t h e substantive of

fen ses of

a coc on spi rat or un der P i n kert on , the a c t m u st h a ve be en rea son a b l y fores ee a b l e to th e d efen d a n t. Uni t e d St at e sv . D e an , 5 9 F .3d1 4 7 9 , 1 4 8 9 , 1 4 9 0 n .20 (5t h C ir.19 9 5 ). T h e i n st an trec ord contai n s su f f i ci en tevi den ce f

or a r ati on alt ri er of

fact to h a v e fo u n d bey on d a reason able dou bt th at O bregon com m i t t ed an of fen se
u n d e r§ 9 2 4 (c ). Se eLo pez - Mo r e no , 4 20 F

. 3dat437

- 43 8. A l t ho ught he r e w as no e vi de nc e t hatO br e go n a c t u all y hand l e d af i r e ar m o ra ta ny t i m e ut i l i z e d a f i r e a r m, t h e r e c o r dd e mo n s t r a t e s t h a t O b r e g o n ’ s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s u s e df i r e a r ms to fa ci l i tate th e k i d n a p p i n g o f S oli s an dtha t it w a s rea son a b l y fores ee a b l e to O b re g o nth a th is c o -c o n s p ir a t o r s w o u ldu s e w e a p o n s fo rth a tp u r p o s e . O b r e g o n ’s
co-con sp i ra tors sp ecif i ca l l y b ra n d i sh edw ea p on s to restra i n an dto i n ti m i d a te S ol i s, an d the gu n s w ere di spl ayed an d u sed i n O bregon ’ s presence. B ecau se t he r e a l s o w as a de qua t e ev i de nc e t o sus t ai n O br e go n’ s c o nvic t i o ns o f ki dna ppi ng Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 41317

5 a n dco n s p ir a c yto k id n a p (i.e ,. c r im e s o f v io le n c e ), O b r e g o n w a s p e r m is s ib ly
c o n v ic te du n d e r§ 9 2 4 (c ) fo rt h e v io la tio n s c o m m itt e db yh is c o -c o n s p ir a to r s . S ee Jensen , 4 1 F .3 da t 9 5 5 -5 6 ; D e an , 5 9 F .3 da t 1 4 8 9
. O bregon f

u rt h er argu es that the di st ri ctcou rtvi ol ated t h e C on f rontat i on C l au se byw rongly i n t erf eri n g w i t h hi s c ou n sel ’ s c ross - exam i n ati on of w i t n esses . H e c o nt e nds t hat t he c o ur t s pe c i f i c all y pr e ve nt e d hi s c o uns e lf r o m q ue s t i o ni ng
w i t ne sse s on s ubj ec t s t hatw er e pe r t i nentt o thei rc r edibi l i t y. H e a ss er t s t hat t h e cou rtessen t i al l y protec t ed w i t n esses fr om im pea chm en tor u n fai rly l i m i t ed h is co u n s e l’ s a b ilityto a s kq u e s tio n s a b o u t m e a n in g fu l m a tt e r s . Thi s co ur tre vi e w s cl ai m e d vi o l at i o ns of a de fe nda nt ’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt
c o n fr o n ta tio n rig h t d e n o v o . Un itedS ta tes v. B ell , 367 F

. 3 d 4 5 2 , 465 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)

. I f

t h ere i s no constit u t i on alvi ol ati on , t h en t h is co u rtrevi ew s a di st ri ct court’ s l im ita tions on cross

- exam i n ati on f or an ab u se of

di scr et i on , w h i ch
r e q u ir e s as h o w in gth a t t h e lim ita tio n s w e r e cle a r lyp r eju d ic ia l. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jim enez , 4 6 4 F .3d5 5 5 , 5 5 8 -5 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Th e Conf

r ont at i on C l ause of t he Si xt h A m endm entguar ant ee s a c r i m i nal d e fe n d a n tt h e o p p o r t u n i t yt o c r o s s - e x a mi n e t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s th i m. D ela w a rev. V

a n A rs d a ll , 475 U

. S

. 673 , 678 ( 198 6)

. H ow ever, t h e C on f rontat i on Cl aus e m e r e l y gua r ant e e s “ an opp ortu n ity f or ef fect ive cros s- exam i n ati on , not
c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n t hati s e f fe c t ivei n w hat e ve rw ay , and t o w hat e ve re xt e nt , t he d efen se m i gh t w i sh

. ” D elaw are v. F enst ere r , 4 7 4 U .S . 1 5 , 2 0 (1 9 8 5 ) (e m p h a s is i n ori gi n al)

. Th e di st ri ct court h as “w i de l atit u de i n sofar as t h e C on f rontat i on C l au se i s c on cerned t o im pose reasona bl e li m i t s on . . . cr oss- exam i n ati on based
o n c o nc e r ns a bo ut , am o ng o t he rt hi ngs , ha r as s m e nt , pr ej udi c e , c o nf us i o n o f t he is s u e s , th e w itn e s s ’s a fe ty , o rin te r r o g a tio n t h a t is r e p e tit iv e o ro n lym a r g in a lly relev a n t. ” V

a n A rs d a ll , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 6 7 9
. T h e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e is g e n e r a lly
sa ti sfi edw h en the de fen d a n t “h a s be en p erm i tted t o ex p ose to t h e j u rythe fa cts fr o m w h ic h ju r o r s , a s th e s o le tr ie r s o f fa c t a n dcr e d ib ility , co u lda p p r o p r ia te ly d ra w i n feren ces re l a ti n g to th e reli a b i l i ty of t h e w i tn ess . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 41317

6 R e s t i vo , 8 F

. 3d274 , 2 78 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on o m itt e d). T h e rec ord show s th at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s i n t erv e n t i on di d n oti n t erf ere
w ithth e d e fen se ’ s c ro ss -ex a m in a tion of w itn e ss e s, b u t in ste adli m it ed that c ross e x a m in a tio n to g e r m a n e a n d a p p r o p r ia te s u bje c ts
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly
r e s tr ic te dth e e x te n t t o w h ic h d e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a s a llo w e dto p r o b e m a r g in a lly rel evan tt opi cs t h at O bregon onl y speculat es m ay h ave en abled hi m t o i m pea ch
w itn e s s e s . S eeV

a n A rs d a ll , 475 U

. S

. at 679
. T h e di st ri ctcourtl i kew i se di d n ot
w r o ngly l i m i tc o uns e lf r o m r e pe t i t ivec r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n b e c aus ea n yli m i t at i o ns on cou n sel’ s ab i l i ty to eli ci t cum u l a tive testi m on y d i d n ot a ff ect th e j u ry ’ s ab i l i ty to e v a lu a te t h e c r e d ib ilityo f w itn e s s e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D avis , 393 F. 3d 540, 548 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtal so properly l i m i t ed coun sel ’ s use of
a r g u m e n ta tiv e q u e s tio n s , cf

. Un i t ed S t ate s v. T

an sley , 98 6 F .2 d 8 8 0 , 88 6 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 99 3) (c o nc l udi ng t hatdef e nda nt ’ s ri ght s w e r e noti nf r i nge d upo n w he n t he di s tric tc o urti m po s e d li m i t ati on s af t er c r o s s - e xa m i nati o n b e c am er e dund anta nd argu m en t ative) an d p erm iss ib ly setf ort h l i m i t ati on s on t h e subj ect s on w h i ch p a r tie s co u ldq u e s tio n w itn e s s e s . Cf

. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mart i n ez , 151 F. 3d 384, 38 9- 90 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 8) (ho l di ng t hatc o ur tdi d no tpr ej udi c e def e nda ntby l i m i t i ng h i s c ou n sel t o pre- est abli shedl i m i t ati on s on, i n t er al i a, t h e sc ope of cr osse xa m i nat i o n)

. Ac c o r di ngly, O br e go n ha s no ts ho w n t hatt he l i m i t at i o ns t hatt he di st ri ctcourti m posedon h i s c ou n sel ’ s c ross - exam i n ati on const i t u t ed an abu se o f di s c r e t i o n. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2010