United States v. Ruvalcaba ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51106
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR MANUEL RUVALCABA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-98-CR-330-1-DB
- - - - - - - - - -
July 7, 1999
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Manuel Ruvalcaba appeals his jury conviction for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841. He argues that the district court erred by
limiting his ability to cross-examine co-defendant and
prosecution witness, Lorenzo Arreola, regarding the minimum
sentence Arreola faced had he not plead guilty. He also asserts
that the district court erred by allowing the Government to
cross-examine Ruvalcaba regarding the plea agreement he reached
in a prior conviction.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51106
-2-
Given the scope of cross-examination that was permitted,
which included the fact that Arreola pleaded guilty to only one
count of the indictment against him and that he expected some
relief for his testimony, Ruvalcaba’s Sixth Amendment rights were
not violated, and the district court did not clearly abuse its
discretion in not allowing this line of questioning. See United
States v. Restivo, 8 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 1993); United States
v. Andrew, 666 F.2d 915, 924 (5th Cir. 1982).
Although the district court erred in allowing the Government
to cross-examine Ruvalcaba about the dismissal of a count on
which he was indicted as part of the plea agreement he reached in
his prior conviction, see United States v. Tumblin, 551 F.2d
1001, 1004 (5th Cir. 1977), this error is subject to harmless
error analysis. See United States v. Smith-Bowman, 76 F.3d 634,
636 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding such error is subject to harmless
error analysis and requires reversal only if it affects a
defendant’s substantial rights). Considering the strength of the
prosecution’s case and the fact that the nature of the charge
dismissed was not put in evidence, this error was harmless.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.