IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50344
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSÉ LUIS GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-99-CR-308-1
--------------------
February 13, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
José Luis Gomez challenges his conviction on three counts of
transporting an illegal alien for financial gain, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1324. He asserts that the district court erred in
admitting at trial the deposition testimony of the illegal aliens
on the ground that the translator provided at the deposition was
not certified and translated the testimony incorrectly. Gomez
has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion in determining that the objection was waived due to
the lack of a contemporaneous objection. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50344
-2-
15(f); United States v. White, 219 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, Gomez has not demonstrated any errors actually made by
the translator and has thus failed to show that the district
court’s alternative determination that there was no proof of any
such errors was an abuse of discretion. See White, 219 F.3d at
448.
Gomez additionally argues, for the first time on appeal,
that the deposition tapes should have been excluded because
immediately before the depositions were taken, a superseding
indictment issued, adding the new element that he had transported
the aliens for personal profit. He asserts that there is no
proof that he was aware of the new indictment and that the issue
of payment was therefore ignored during the depositions.
Gomez has not affirmatively asserted that he did not have
notice of the superseding indictment, which issued five days
prior to the taking of the depositions, and he has thus failed to
demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, in connection with
their admission based on the issuance of the superseding
indictment. See United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th
Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 2001 WL 13025 (2001). Moreover, he
does not state what questions, if any, he would have asked or
asked differently had he known of the superseding indictment, and
he thus fails to show that his substantial rights or the fairness
of the proceedings were affected. See id.
Gomez’s appeal is wholly without arguable merit and is
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
No. 00-50344
-3-
1993). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See id.; 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.