UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________
No. 96-50855
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CESAR ISLAS-ALVAREZ, XOCHITL ROCHA-FLORES, and
NICHOLAS EMEY PARGAZ,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(96-CR-189)
November 10, 1997
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Xochitl Rocha-Flores and Nicholas Emey
Pargaz (collectively “defendants”) appeal their convictions for
conspiracy to distribute marijuana (in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana,
and possession with intent to distribute marijuana (both in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), alleging that errors committed
by the district court prevented them from receiving a fair trial.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
We find defendants’ claims regarding the allegedly prejudicial
conduct of the trial judge during the cross-examination of
Government witness Richard Austin unsupported by any case law and
directly contradicted by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
See FED. R. EVID. 611(a) (providing that the court should “exercise
reasonable control” over the questioning of witnesses in order to
aid in the “ascertainment of truth,” avoid “needless consumption of
time,” and “protect witnesses from harassment or undue
embarrassment”). Likewise, we find each of the district court’s
allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings to be well within the
bounds of discretion provided by United States v. Anderson, 933
F.2d 1261, 1267-1268 (5th Cir. 1991) (applying a “highly
deferential” abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court’s
evidentiary rulings, but noting that review of such rulings in
criminal trials is “necessarily heightened”). Islas-Alvarez’s
remaining claim of error))that the district court improperly
sentenced him for larger amounts of marijuana than it was proved he
was involved with at trial))merits little discussion in light of
Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 748, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 1928,
128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) (state need only prove conduct for
sentencing purposes by a “preponderance of the evidence”) (citing
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2418-
2419, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986)).
AFFIRMED.