Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-28
Citations: 249 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 06-40529
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40529
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Oscar O. Pena, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
At the conclusion of his jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Raymundo De La Cruz was convicted of one count of conspiring to possess more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to serve 174 months in prison. De La Cruz appeals his conviction, asserting it is invalid because evidence regarding cocaine was admitted at his trial. As the evidence of De La Cruz's guilt was overwhelming, any error that occurred in connection with the admission of the disputed evidence was harmless. See United States v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95, 99 n. 11 (5th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Smith, 354 F.3d 390, 396 (5th Cir.2003). De La Cruz also claims that his indictment was constructively amended. This contention is unavailing, because the record does not show that the jury was "permitted to convict on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment." See United States v. Daniels, 252 F.3d 411, 413 (5th Cir.2001). The judgment of the district court is
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.