United States v. Hernandez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4780
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HECTOR MANUEL HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-20)
Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. Ayers, II, AYERS, HAIDT & TRABUCCO, P.A., New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hector Manuel Hernandez was convicted after a jury trial
of conspiring to obstruct and delay interstate commerce by robbery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000) (Count One); aiding and
abetting the obstruction and delay of interstate commerce, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2 (2000) (Count Ten); using,
carrying, and brandishing firearms during and in relation to a
crime of violence, and aiding and abetting that crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 924(c), 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) (Count
Eleven); and possessing firearms and aiding and abetting the
possession of firearms while being an alien illegally in the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 2 (2000) (Count
Twelve). He was sentenced to concurrent seventy-one-month terms of
imprisonment on Counts One, Ten, and Twelve, and a consecutive
eighty-four-month sentence on Count Eleven, followed by five years
of supervised release. The district court also imposed a $5400
fine.
Hernandez has appealed. On appeal, counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
he found no meritorious issues for appeal, but seeking review of a
district court ruling granting the Government’s motion in limine
limiting cross-examination of one witness. Hernandez was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, and has done so.
- 2 -
Counsel asserts that the district court’s grant of the
Government’s motion in limine prohibiting him from impeaching the
officer who handled the evidence in this case regarding his
discharge from the Lumberton Police Department violated his Sixth
Amendment right to confrontation. We review the denial of a motion
in limine for abuse of discretion. See United States v. White, 405
F.3d 208, 212 (4th Cir.) (“We review rulings concerning the
admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.”), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 668 (2005); Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471, 480 (4th
Cir. 1994) (reviewing ruling on motion in limine for abuse of
discretion).
The Confrontation Clause guarantees the accused the right
to cross-examine witnesses. U.S. Const. amend. VI; United States
v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 221 (4th Cir.) (“[T]he right of cross
examination is a precious one, essential to a fair trial.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. (2006). Thus, “a trial court should accord a criminal
defendant a reasonable opportunity to conduct cross-examination
that might undermine a witness’s testimony.” Smith, 451 F.3d at
221. However, the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee counsel
the right to unfettered, unlimited cross-examination, nor does it
prevent a trial judge from imposing reasonable limits on
cross-examination based upon concerns about harassment, prejudice,
confusion of the issues, witness safety, repetition, or relevance.
- 3 -
Id. (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986), and
Fed. R. Evid. 403).
The appraisal of the probative and prejudicial value of
evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court
and its appraisal, absent extraordinary circumstances, will not be
disturbed. See United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th
Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the district court’s ruling, and find
that its limitation of cross-examination in this case did not
constitute an abuse of discretion. Therefore, this claim entitles
Hernandez to no relief.
We have reviewed the issue raised in Hernandez’s pro se
supplemental brief, and find that it lacks merit. In accordance
with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Hernandez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Hernandez, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Hernandez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hernandez.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 4 -
AFFIRMED
- 5 -