IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20851
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ODON GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CR-31-3
- - - - - - - - - -
January 6, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Odon Gomez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of
marijuana. Gomez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He
also challenges the district court’s rulings regarding witness
Rosalda Guerra’s testimony. Gomez contends that the district
court’s decisions to admit Guerra’s direct examination testimony,
as restricted, and to allow Guerra to invoke the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination as to questions related to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-20851
-2-
the purpose of Gomez’s trip to Houston impermissibly limited his
Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and caused him prejudice.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the
evidence was sufficient to convict Gomez of voluntarily
participating in the conspiracy.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it
admitted Rosalda Guerra’s direct examination testimony and
decided that it would allow Guerra to invoke the Fifth Amendment
privilege to questions related to the purpose of Gomez’s trip to
Houston. Gomez was allowed to test the truthfulness of Guerra’s
testimony on cross-examination, and he has not shown prejudice
resulting from the district court’s decision that Guerra could
invoke the privilege as to questions related to her knowledge of
the purpose of Gomez’s trip to Houston. Gomez has not shown
reversible error. See United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12
F.3d 1339, 1348 (5th Cir. 1994)(Defendant must show that
government made “a flagrant attempt to build its case on
inferences arising from the assertion of the privilege” and that
“the refusal to answer add[ed] considerable weight to the
government’s case.”).
Gomez’s conviction is AFFIRMED.