United States v. Gomez ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50231
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAZARO GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CR-42-2-EP
_______________________________________________
January 9, 2001
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lazaro Gomez appeals his conviction on one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute marihuana and one count of possession with intent to
distribute marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, challenging
several evidentiary rulings by the district court.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
Gomez first contends that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of
Border Patrol Special Agent Oscar Castano about the use of "scout" cars by drug
smugglers because his testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial. We are not
persuaded. The district court did not abuse its discretion. Law enforcement officers
may testify concerning the significance of certain conduct or methods of operation
unique to the drug distribution business.1 Further, the testimony was not improper
profile evidence.2
Gomez also contends that the district court erred by permitting the prosecutor
to ask a defense witness on cross-examination whether the witness knew that he
was an alien and could be deported upon conviction. This question obviously was
relevant to whether the witness, who described himself as a very good friend of the
defendant, had any bias or motivation to falsify his testimony.3
Gomez next maintains that the district court erred by permitting rebuttal
evidence because the evidence purportedly allowed the jury to infer guilt by
association. Assuming arguendo that there was error, such error was harmless in
light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.4 The record discloses that Gomez
rented the load vehicle, drove it to San Antonio, acted as a "scout" for the load
1
United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Washington, 44
F.3d 1271 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
Buchanan, 70 F.3d at 833 n.16; United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 610 n.3 (5th Cir.
1994).
3
United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984); United States v. Hall, 653 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir.
1981).
4
United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
vehicle, fled the scene of arrest, paged the drug dealers after the arrest, and spoke in
code with one of the leaders of the drug organization. Finally, we reject Gomez's
contention that the cumulative effect of the district court's rulings requires reversal.
We are not persuaded that different rulings by the district court would have
produced "a very different trial."5
The convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
5
United States v. Riddle, 103 F.3d 423, 434 (5th Cir. 1997).
3