eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-10

United States v. Carl Swanger ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-40201     Document: 00515616283         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/26/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 26, 2020
No. 20-40201
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                       Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carl Swanger,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-423-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carl Swanger was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to
transport an undocumented alien within the United States and two counts of
transporting an undocumented alien within the United States, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(I). The district court sentenced him to concurrent
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40201       Document: 00515616283             Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/26/2020
No. 20-40201
terms of 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He now
appeals on grounds that the district court abused its discretion by allowing
the jury to hear evidence of his prior conviction of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Prior to Swanger testifying, his counsel argued that the Government
should not be allowed to impeach him with his prior conviction because its
prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value in violation of Federal
Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(B). The Government disagreed, and the district
court held that the probative value of the prior conviction had general
impeachment value as to Swanger’s credibility and would outweigh any
prejudicial effect because the substance of the crime would not be discussed
and it would instruct the jury that the prior conviction should be considered
for its limited impeachment value and nothing more. 1
A district court’s ruling on an evidentiary matter is reviewed for abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Privett,
    68 F.3d 101
    , 105 (5th Cir. 1995).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Swanger’s prior
conviction is not similar to his current one, the resolution of this matter
largely turned on Swanger’s credibility because his testimony contradicted
the testimony of the Government’s witnesses, and the district court
instructed the jury that Swanger’s prior conviction was non-dispositive
evidence of his credibility and nothing else. See United States v. Breckenridge,
    782 F.2d 1317
    , 1323 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Barnes,
    622 F.2d 107
    , 109
(5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Turner,
    960 F.2d 461
    , 465 (5th Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
1
Although the district court initially limited the impeachment evidence to
Swanger’s status as a convicted felon, Swanger’s counsel, then the Government, asked him
details of the prior conviction.
2