Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto MORENO, also known as Viejo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-13
Citations: 540 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 12-50639
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto MORENO, also known as Viejo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto MORENO, also known as Viejo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50639.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert D. Wilson, Law Office of Robert D. Wilson, Dallas, TX, for DefendanF-Ap-pellant.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Moreno appeals his convictions following a jury trial of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and conspiring to commit money laundering.
Moreno fails to show that his right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community was violated; he cites only the composition of the randomly chosen venire at his own trial and does not attempt to show a systematic exclusion of minorities from other venires over time in the Western District of Texas's jury selection process. See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 568 (5th Cir.2001). Likewise, while he claims that the district court abused its discretion by limiting his Confrontation Clause rights to cross-examine Government witnesses, he fails to cite any evidence showing that he was clearly prejudiced by the limitations of which he complains. See United States v. Landerman, 109 F.3d 1053, 1061 (5th Cir.1997). Finally, Moreno does not identify with specificity any instance in which the district court refused to admit into evidence the criminal conviction of any Government witness. See Fed.R.Evid. 609.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.