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

No. 11-50813 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JAIME FLORES, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-106-1

REVISED NOVEMBER 15, 2012 The opinion issued November 14, 2012, is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the following.

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury found Jaime Flores guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, and the district co u rt sentenced him to 72 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On 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 15, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t 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: 11-50813 Document: 00512054623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2012No. 11-50813

appeal, Flores contends that the district c o u r t e r red 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). Flores 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 only if it a f

f e c t s the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. I n h i s first ground for relief, Flores contends that the district co u r t

c o n s t r u c t i v e l y a mended the indictment by failing to limit the jury’s c o n s i d e r a t i o n 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 e r r o r arising from the court’s conspiracy instru c t i ons. See United States v. Leahy , 82 F.3d 624, 630-31 (5th Cir. 1996). Although Flores also asserts that the jury should have been instructed about the possibility of multiple conspiracies, he has not est a blished that the district court’s failure to give such an instruction affect e d h i s substantial rights. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Morris , 46 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 1995). F lo re s a sse rts th a t th e di s t r i c t c our t s hou ld 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 itn e ss. E v e n a ssu m in g th a t p o rtio n s o f D e te c tiv 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 e v id e n ce is n o t ch a lle n g e d a n d th e d istrict co u rt p r o p e r l y i n stru cte d th e ju ry th a t it co u ld a cce p t o r re je 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, if a n y , to g iv e to e a ch w itn e ss’s te stim o n y , F lo re s h a s n o t d e m o n stra te d

2 Case: 11-50813 Document: 00512054623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2012No. 11-50813

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 ri ght s. S ee P u ck ett , 5 5 6 U .S

. a t 1 3 5

. F u rth e r, F lo re s h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e f a i l u r e t o 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 ci r c u m sta n ce s a ffe cts th e fa irn e s s, 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

. In his final ground for relief, Flores asserts that the jury in s t r uctions as

a whole constituted a cumulative plain error. He has not shown that there exist

errors to be cumulated, and thus he is not entitled to relief. See United States

v. Brooks , 681 F.3d 678, 705 (5th Cir. 2012), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 9, 2012) (No. 12-5812), and petition for cert. filed (Aug. 16, 2012) (No. 12-5847). Because Flores has not shown reversible error, the judg m e n t o f t he district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-50813 Document: 00512054623 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/15/2012