* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41256

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL FLORES, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-956-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Flores, Jr., appeals following his jury trial conviction of one count of

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Flores was arrested after an

inspection of his vehicle at an immigration checkpoint on the highway between

Laredo and San Antonio revealed that barrels on the truck he was driving

contained marijuana. At Flores’s trial, Agent Rene Martinez of the Border

Patrol testified that Flores admitted knowledge of the marijuana, and a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41256

2

supplemental report prepared by Agent Martinez containing notes on Flores’s

admissions was admitted into evidence.

Flores contends that the district court erred in excluding testimony by

Agent Antonia Mojica ofthe Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regarding

his denial of knowledge of the marijuana on the vehicle. He also contends that

the district court erred by failing to admit a report prepared by Agent Mojica,

which reflected that he had denied knowledge of the marijuana in an interview

with DEA agents. Flores argues that the excluded evidence was admissible

under FED. R. EVID. 106. Citing Texas state authorities, Flores also relies on the

“rule of optional completeness” and on Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Because state evidentiary rules have no application in federal district courts, we

do not consider Flores’s arguments based on Texas law. 

A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion,

United States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 1999). If an abuse of

discretion is found, the error is reviewed under the harmless error doctrine. Id.

“Rule 106 does not apply to a witness’s testimony at trial.” United States

v. Garcia, 530 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2008). “Rule 106 only allows the admission

of portions [of a document] that are ‘relevant and necessary to qualify, explain,

or place into context the portion already introduced.’” Id. at 352 (quotation

marks and citation omitted). 

Here, the excluded evidence was not necessary to qualify, to explain, or to

place into context Flores’s admission to Agent Martinez of his knowledge of the

marijuana. Evidence of Flores’s admission to Agent Martinez, viewed alone, was

not “misleading.” See United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 727 (5th Cir. 1996).

Flores has failed to show thatthe district court abused its discretion in excluding

evidence. See Cantu, 167 F.3d at 203.

Additionally, we agree with the Government that, if the district court

erred in excluding the evidence in question, any error was harmless. Agent

Mojica testified that Flores told DEA agents that the purpose of his journey to
No. 07-41256

3

San Antonio was to obtain maintenance work on the vehicle. It was clear from

Agent Mojica’s testimony that Flores told a different story to the DEA agents

than he told to Agent Martinez and that Flores did not admit knowledge of the

marijuana in his interview with the DEA. The excluded evidence would

therefore have been cumulative. 

Moreover, the evidence showed that Flores admitted knowledge of the

marijuana to two Border Patrol agents at different times. Agent Martinez’s

testimony regarding Flores’s admission was similar to testimony by Agent

Hector Lira that Flores indicated an awareness of the concealed marijuana. In

view ofthe above, and considering the overall strength ofthe Government’s case,

any error in excluding evidence was harmless and did not affect Flores’s

substantial rights. See United States v. Tucker, 345 F.3d 320, 326-27 (5th Cir.

2003); United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.