Court Opinion

ID: 9910610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 01:00:44.785505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:30.604632
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51042         Document: 00517003944             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                      December 15, 2023
                                       No. 22-51042
                                      ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                             Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ronnie Collins, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:20-CR-468-4
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Ronnie Collins, Jr., was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess
   with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The
   district court sentenced him to 360 months in prison and five years of super-
   vised release.
          Collins contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment
   by preventing him from fully cross-examining a prosecution witness in two

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51042      Document: 00517003944          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                    No. 22-51042

   instances. The government introduced the testimony of Anthony Lopez, a
   member of the same conspiracy as Collins, who had pleaded guilty. Lopez
   testified that his source of drugs in Mexico was his godfather. On cross-
   examination, Lopez was asked for his godfather’s name. The district court
   sustained the government’s objection on the ground of relevance. Collins
   maintains that sustaining that objection deprived him of the opportunity to
   show that Lopez was shifting culpability to Collins to protect his relatives.
          Lopez also testified that the conspiracy used a house at 907 Gevers
   Street for distribution. Lopez testified that he and Collins drove to the house
   to drop off nine ounces of methamphetamine and that Collins exited the car
   and brought the methamphetamine into the house. On direct examination
   and cross-examination, Lopez admitted that the factual basis for his guilty
   plea stated that he had entered the house and that he knowingly pleaded
   guilty based on the inaccurate factual basis supporting the plea. On cross-
   examination, the incident was addressed in detail, and Lopez was asked
   whether he was aware that law enforcement agents had testified that he got
   out of the car on that occasion. The government objected, and the objection
   was sustained.
          “The Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant the opportunity
   for effective cross-examination.” United States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501, 510
   (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). If there is no constitutional violation, we
   review the district court’s restrictions on cross-examination for abuse of dis-
   cretion. United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555, 558–59 (5th Cir. 2006). Col-
   lins has not established that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated
   with respect to either of the limits placed on his cross-examination of Lopez.
   With respect to the name of Lopez’s godfather, Collins points to no specific
   reason the name of the godfather was required to allow the jury to draw the
   inference that Lopez was trying to protect his relative by inculpating Collins.
   Similarly, Collins has failed to suggest how Lopez’s surprise by the testimony

                                          2
Case: 22-51042     Document: 00517003944             Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                      No. 22-51042

   of law enforcement officials regarding the Gevers Street incident would have
   had any effect on the jury’s view of his reliability in light of his repeated
   admissions that he knew that the factual basis for his plea was false with
   respect to the incident. Collins has not shown that he was denied a constitu-
   tionally effective cross-examination of Lopez. See United States v. Hitt,
   473 F.3d 146, 156 (5th Cir. 2006); Lockhart, 844 F.3d at 510.
          Collins has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion
   in limiting his cross-examination of Lopez. See Jimenez, 464 F.3d at 558–59.
   As discussed above, Collins has not shown that he was prejudiced by the dis-
   trict court’s limiting his cross-examination. See United States v. Restivo,
   8 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 1993).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3