United States v. Juarez-Rivera ( 2004 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50020
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE GUADALUPE JUAREZ-RIVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-95-CR-32(1)
- - - - - - - - - -
August 30, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Guadalupe Juarez-Rivera appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana,
conspiracy to import marijuana, possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, and importing marijuana. He contends that
the prosecutor violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory
process by intimidating his prospective witness into refusing to
testify on his behalf, the district court erred in allowing that
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-50020
- 2 -
witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination, the witness should have been granted immunity by
the district court, and the district court abused its discretion
in refusing to allow an alleged exculpatory statement made by the
witness into evidence.
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The
prosecutor’s comments to Juarez-River’s prospective witness do
not rise to the level of a due process violation. See United
States v. Viera, 839 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc).
There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's deferral
to the witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment. United
States v. Follin, 979 F.2d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 509 U.S. 908 (1993). The district court did not abuse
its discretion in refusing to admit into evidence the alleged
exculpatory statement. United States v. Campbell, 73 F.3d 44, 47
(5th Cir. 1996). Finally, we do not consider Juarez-Rivera’s
argument that his witness should have been granted immunity
because the argument is not adequately briefed. See L & A
Contracting Co. v. Southern Concrete Serv., Inc., 17 F.3d 106,
113 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.