United States v. Dominguez-Chavez
300 F. App'x 312
5th Cir.
2008
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando DOMINGUEZ-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51048

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 2008.

without probable cause and excessive force was used). Player never objected to the reading of his confession at trial.

We review a district court‘s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See . “An erroneous evidentiary ruling merits the reversal of judgment only where the challenged ruling affects a substantial right of a party.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, if the complaining party does not properly object at trial to the admission of the evidence, we review the evidentiary challenge on appeal only for plain error. See Fed. R. Evid 103(d); . Under this standard, we generally reverse only for “obvious and substantial errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings“. .

The record reveals the defense never introduced evidence of a conviction in connection with the facts surrounding the instant action. The signed judicial confession was read aloud to the jury during the cross-examination of Player, after he had testified on direct examination that he was not in possession of drugs on 6 September 2003. The judicial confession was admissible to impeach that testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 607; (holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which bars the introduction of extrinsic evidence of specific conduct to attack or support a witness’ character for truthfulness, is “inapplicable in determining the admissibility of relevant evidence introduced to contradict a witness‘s testimony as to a material issue“). In sum, there was no reversible plain error.

Player maintains the defense mischaracterized certain facts. This issue is inadequately briefed and is therefore waived. See .

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leon Schydlower, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Dominguez-Chavez (Dominguez) appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Dominguez contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for discovery and failing to compel the Government to produce documentation concerning the Western District of Texas‘s refusal to participate in a fast-track program. He also contends that the absence of a fast-track program in the Western District of Texas resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity and that the district court erred in failing to consider this unwarranted sentencing disparity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

Dominguez‘s contention that the absence of a fast-track program in the Western District of Texas resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See , petition for cert. filed (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226); , petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2008) (No. 08-5514). Further, in light of Gomez-Herrera and Lopez-Velasquez, the materials sought were neither relevant nor necessary to district court‘s imposition of sentence, and Dominguez has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for discovery. See . Finally, Dominguez has failed to adequately raise or develop his due process and equal protection arguments in his appellate brief, and, thus, they are waived. See . Accordingly, the district court‘s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
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.