United States v. Munive ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    No. 99-20181
    Summary Calendar
    _____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    PEDRO MUNIVE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    (H-94-CR-300-1)
    _________________________________________________________________
    January 3, 2000
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Pedro Munive appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess
    with       the   intent    to   distribute    and   aiding    and   abetting    the
    possession        with    the   intent   to   distribute     in   excess   of   five
    kilograms of cocaine.            His sole contention on appeal is that the
    district court erred by denying his challenges for cause to three
    prospective jurors who testified during voir dire that they would
    tend to believe the testimony of government agents, forcing him to
    waste peremptory challenges on those jurors.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    To the extent that Munive contends that the denials of his
    challenges for cause violated his Sixth Amendment right to an
    impartial jury, the claim fails because he does not contend that
    any of the jurors who actually served were not impartial.   See Ross
    v. Oklahoma, 
    487 U.S. 81
    , 88 (1988); United States v. Webster, 
    162 F.3d 308
    , 342 n.36 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted), cert.
    denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    120 S. Ct. 83
    (1999).   Munive’s claim that he
    was denied his statutory right to free exercise of his peremptory
    challenges also fails because he has not demonstrated that the
    district court abused its discretion in determining that the
    challenged jurors were impartial.    See United States v. Scott, 
    159 F.3d 916
    , 925 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Munoz, 
    15 F.3d 395
    ,
    397 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    511 U.S. 1134
    (1994).
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-20181

Filed Date: 1/3/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021