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

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40113 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. E S M E R A L D AG R IS E L D AD E L O S S A N T O S , 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 t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R

- 917- 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 I A M: * E sm eral da G ri sel da D e L os S an t os w as con vi ct ed by a j u ry of conspir acy t o po s s e s s w i t h i n t en tt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne a nd m e t ham phe t am i ne , a nd possessi on w i t h i n t en tt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai n e an d m et h am ph et am i n e; she received
concu rrent sentences of 292 m on t h s i n pri son. O n a p p e a l , D e L os San t os c o nt e nds t hats he w as de pr ive d o f afai rt r i alb e c aus e s he w as una bl e t o pr e s e nt a “c om pl et e” defen se of du ress an d coerc i on . Sh e contends that t h e di st ri ctcourt
erre di n su stain i n g th e G ov er n m e n t’ s h ea rsa y o b j ection s to h er a ttem p ts t o United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 26, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40113 Document: 00511122066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2010N o. 09- 40113

2 t es t i fy a b ou tt he t hre at s m ade a gai nsther se l f and herfam i l y. Becaus e t r i al
coun sel“ m ad e n o att em pt t o i n f orm t h e di st ri ctcourt” w h y t h e t est i m on y di d n ot qua l i f y as hea r s ay , w e do no t“ c o ns i de rt he pr o pr i e t y o f t he de c i s i o n t o e xc l ude th e evide n ce a t i ssu e.” Un itedS ta tes v. C lem en ts , 73 F
. 3d 133 0, 133 6 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). E v e n if D e L o s ’ s S a n to s ’ s co n te n tio n th a t s h e w a s d e n ie da fa irtr ia l is constr u ed as an asser t i on t h at her sub st an t i al ri gh t s w ere af fect ed, she has n ot est abli shed tha tthe di st ri ctcou rta bu sed i t s di scr et i on i n den yi n g D e L os San t os th e o p p o r tu n ityto te s tifya b o u t t h e e x a c t la n g u a g e o f th e th r e a ts
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C raw ley , 5 3 3 F .3 d3 4 9 , 3 5 3 (5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S. C t
. 522 (2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 5 0 4 F .3d5 6 1 , 5 7 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). D e L os San t os al so c on t en ds t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n den yi n g h er u n tim e lym o tio n fo ra co n tin u a n c e . S h e s o u g h t a co n tin u a n c e s o th a t s h e co u ld f i n d w i t n esses t o sup port h er c oerci on defen se by t est i f y ing ab ou tt h e dan gers o f t he dr ug t r ad e i n M e xi c o . Bec aus e D e Lo s Sa nt o s ha s no te s t ab l i s he d t hatt he di s t ri c tc o ur ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng t he unt i m e l y m o t i o n o rt hats he

“ s uf fe r e d s e r i o us pr ej udi c e , ” w e w i l l no t r e ve r s e t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s deci si o n. Un itedS ta tes v. S co tt , 4 8 F .3d 1 3 8 9 , 1 3 9 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). D e Los Sant os c ont ends t hathert r i a lco unselr ender ed i nef fec t ive a ssistan ce b y fail i n g to fi l e p ret r ia l m o ti on s, byfa i l i n g to ob tain w i tn ess es to
s upp o r the rc o e r c i o n de fe ns e , and by no t ar gui ng t hatt he t e s t i m o ny ab o utt he t hre at s m ade a gai nstD e Los Sant os and herfam i l y di d notc ons t i t ut e he ar sa y. B ec ause t he r ec or d doe s notr eve alan “ appar ent” or“ obvi ous ” s h or t c om i ng by tr ia l co u n s e l, w e d e c lin e to c o n s id e r D e L o s S a n to s ’ s in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e cla im s o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Massaro v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 3 0 U .S

. 5 0 0 , 5 0 8 (20 0 3 ). D e Los Sant os al so m ai nt ai ns t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n i m pos i ng a t w o - l e ve ls e nt e nc i ng enha nc e m e ntf o ro bs t r uc t i o n o f

j us t i c e , b as e d o n t he proba t i on of

f i cer’ s asser t i on t h at s h e ha d p e rju red hersel f

. Th e di st ri ctcourt
c o ns i de r e d v ar i o us s t at e m e nt s m ad e b y D e Lo s Sa nt o s dur i ng h er t r i ala nd
c onc l uded t hatt he s tatem ent s w er e fal se , t hatt hey pe r t ai ned t o m at er i al Case: 09-40113 Document: 00511122066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2010N o. 09- 40113

3 m att ers, an d that t h ey w ere m ad e w i l l f u l l y rat h er t h an becau se of a m i st ak e or confusi on . B ecau se t h e court ’ s f i n di n gs est abli shed a fact u al p red i cat e f or f i ndi ng pe rj ur y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tc l e ar l y e r ri n im posi ng t he
e n h a n c e m e n t. S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. C ree ch , 4 0 8 F .3d 2 6 4 , 2 7 0 -7 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Wild , 9 2 F .3 d3 0 4 , 3 0 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 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: 09-40113 Document: 00511122066 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2010