IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40223

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROGELIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-658-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Rogelio Rodriguez of being present in the United States 

illegally after previous deportation. The Government’s evidence included the 

circumstances of Rodriguez’s arrest, his admission to Border Patrol agents that 

he is a Mexican citizen, and his record of prior deportations. Rodriguez 

presented no evidence but sought to introduce an immigration attorney as an 

expert witness to explain to the jury how immigration proceedings work and 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40223 Document: 00514893043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2019
No. 18-40223

2

to testify that sometimes individuals do not know they are U.S. citizens and 

are erroneously deported. The district court excluded the attorney’s testimony

as irrelevant and because it would not assist the jury given the lack of any 

evidence that Rodriguez is a U.S. citizen and had been erroneously deported. 

Rodriguez argues that exclusion of the attorney’s testimony violated his right 

to present a complete defense.

“[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful 

opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 

690 (1986). However, the Constitution also “permits judges to exclude evidence 

that is . . . only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of . . . confusion of 

the issues.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326-27 (2006) (internal 

quotation and citations omitted). To prove a violation of the right to present a 

complete defense, a defendant must show “the excluded evidence is 

indispensable to the theory of defense, and the district court fail[ed] to provide 

a rational justification for its exclusion.” United States v. Kurht, 788 F.3d 403, 

421 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

Neither prong is met here. The attorney’s proposed testimony did not 

relate to Rodriguez’s status and would not have refuted or raised questions 

about the Government’s evidence. Thus, it was not indispensable. See id. at 

422. Moreover, the district court’s justification for excluding the testimony was 

rational. Due to the lack of a factual connection, the testimony was irrelevant 

and not “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it [would] aid the jury in 

resolving a factual dispute.” Id. at 420 (quoting United States v. Tucker, 345 

F.3d 320, 327 (5th Cir. 2003)); see also FED. R. EVID. 401, 702. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the attorney’s testimony. See 

Tucker, 345 F.3d at 332 (affirming the exclusion of expert testimony that the 

district court ruled was not helpful to the jury because it was not relevant to 

 Case: 18-40223 Document: 00514893043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2019
No. 18-40223

3

the facts); see also United States v. Flores-Martinez, 677 F.3d 699, 709 n.5, 712

(5th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion in excluding defendant’s 

testimony because a “defendant has no right to present irrelevant testimony”).

Rodriguez also challenges the district court’s instructions to the jury. 

However, Rodriguez presented no evidence that he was entitled to his 

requested instructions. See United States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir. 

2007); see also United States v. Valdez-Lopez, 444 F. App’x 829, 833 (5th Cir. 

2011) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s refusal to instruct the 

jury on derivative citizenship because defendant “presented no evidence 

whatsoever” that he was entitled to this defense). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion in giving this Court’s pattern jury instruction. See United 

States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 354 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40223 Document: 00514893043 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2019