Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan PINEDA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-20
Citations: 203 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 05-40935
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan PINEDA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan PINEDA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40935
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Jonathan Pineda-Diaz appeals his jury trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to possess marijuana thusly. He contends that reversible error resulted when the government, while cross-examining him, referred to out-of-court statements of a co-conspirator who was not present to testify. Pineda objected to the line of questioning, and the district court sustained his objection.
Assuming without deciding that the questioning was improper, we conclude that "the evidence as a whole before the jury was sufficiently convincing of guilt as to overcome any error committed by the government during its cross-examination." See United, States v. Smith-Bowman, 76 F.3d 634, 636-37 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Pepper, 51 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, any error resulting from the prosecutor's cross-examination was harmless. Pineda's conviction and sentence are
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.