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. 09- 50306 Su m m ar yC al 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. JAV IE R V E N C E S , S R
. , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C R
- 196- 1
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A j ur y c o nvic t e d J av i e rVenc e s , Sr
. , o f a i di n g an d ab e t t i ng i n t he pos se ss i on w i t h i n ten t t o di st r ibut e a tl eas t100 ki l ogr am s of m ar ij uana, c o ns pir ac y t o po s s e s s w i t h i nt e nt t o di s t r ibut e at l e as t 10 0 kil o gram s of m ar ij uana, and pos se ss i on o f a f i r ear m by a c onvi c t ed f el on, i n vi ol ati on of

21 U .S .C
. § § 8 4 1 (a )(1), (b )(1)(B )(vii), & 8 4 6 , a n d1 8 U .S .C
. § § 2 , 9 2 2 (g)(1), & 924( a) ( 2)
. The di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed Vence s t o con cu rre ntt er m s of 87 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t o n e a c h o f th e th r e e co u n ts o f c o n v ic tio n . O n a p p e a l, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50306 Document: 00511108099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 50306

2 V en ces argu es th at th e t ri alcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on by den yi n g h i s m ot i on to d i sclose th e iden tity of t h e con fi d en ti a li n form a n t. The di s t r i c tc o ur the l d a n i n cam e r a he ar i ng r e ga r di ng w he t he rt he i nf or m ant ’ s i d ent i t y s houl d be r eve al ed, a pr oc edur e thatt hi s c our thas p r e v io u s lya p p r o v e d
. S ee Uni t e d St at e sv . Fr e und , 525 F
. 2d8 73, 8 77-78 ( 5th C i r. 1976)
. Th i s c our t use s a t hre e- par t t es tt o de t er m i ne w het hert he i dent i t y o f an i nf o r m ants ho ul d b e r e ve al e d: ( 1) t he l e ve lo f t he i nf o r m ant ’ s a c t ivit y; ( 2) t he h e lp fu ln e s s o f t h e d is c lo s u r e t o t h e a s s e r t e dd e fe n s e ; a n d(3 ) t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’s in te r e s t in n o n d is c lo s u r e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Iba rra , 493 F
. 3d526 , 531 (5th C i r. 200 7)
. A f

t er revi ew i n g t h e t ran scr i pt of t h e i n cam era hea ri n g, rec ord evi den ce r e le v a n t t o th e d is p o s itio n o f th is a p p e a l, a n dth e a r g u m e n ts o f th e p a r tie s , th is c o ur tf i nds t hatt he i nt e r e s t s b al ance tow ar d no ndi s c l o s ur e . Al t ho ught he i nf o r m ant ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i o n s upp o r t s di scl os ur e , Venc e s di d no ts ho w t hatt he i n f orm an t ’ s t est i m on y w ou l d s ign i f i can t l y ai d i n est abli shi n g an asser t ed defense, w h i ch cuts agai n stdi scl osure. M oreover, t h e G overnm en t ’ s i n t erest cl earl y sup ports non di scl osure. W h ere, a s h ere, t h e rel ative i n t erest s bal an ce t ow ar d nondi sc l os ure , and w her e the di st r i c tc our thel d an i n ca m er a hear i ng at w h ic h ev i d en ce w a s p rese n tedtha t en a b l edthe distri ct cou rt t o rea ch its de c i s i o n, t h e d i s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e it s di s c r e t i o n i n wi t hho l di ng t he id e n tit yo f

t h e in fo r m a n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D e Los S an t os , 810 F. 2d 1326, 1 3 3 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). 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 t h e r e f o r e A F F I RMED. Case: 09-50306 Document: 00511108099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2010