United States v. Doctor Javier Garcia , 271 F. App'x 904 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-16480 March 28, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-20155-CR-MGC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOCTOR JAVIER GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 28, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Doctor Javier Garcia appeals his convictions for three conspiracy crimes.
Garcia argues that the district court erred when it permitted the government to
impeach Garcia’s co-defendant Junior Rafael Corrales with Corrales’s convictions
regarding the same conspiracy that was the basis of the charges against Garcia. We
affirm.
When the government cross-examined Corrales about his convictions,
Garcia objected that the subject was “beyond the scope” of his direct examination.
Garcia now argues that the district court undermined his mistake-of-fact defense
when it allowed the government to impeach Corrales with his conspiracy
convictions. Garcia’s failure to raise this argument in the district court bars relief
unless Garcia establishes a plain error that “seriously jeopardized [his] substantial
rights.” United States v. King, 505 F.2d 602, 605 (5th Cir. 1974).
The district court did not plainly err by permitting the government to
question Corrales about his convictions. Evidence of the convictions allowed the
jury to assess fairly Corrales’s testimony and corrected the impression that
Corrales was acting as a confidential informant and was not a participant in the
conspiracy. See United States v. Deloach, 34 F.3d 1001, 1004 (11th Cir. 1994).
Although the court did not instruct the jury about the limited use of the
convictions, “the absence of a cautionary instruction alone does not warrant a
conclusion of plain error.” King, 505 F.2d at 607. The government briefly
2
inquired into Corrales’s convictions to establish that Corrales’s actions were not
sanctioned by the government, and the government did not insinuate that
Corrales’s guilt incriminated Garcia. See King, 505 F.2d at 609 (citing United
States v. Rothman, 463 F.2d 488, 490 (2d Cir. 1972)); Deloach, 34 F.3d at 1004.
The evidence did not preclude Garcia from presenting his mistake-of-fact defense
that he believed he was acting in concert with Corrales to build a drug trafficking
case for the Drug Enforcement Agency. See King, 505 F.2d at 609.
Garcia’s convictions are AFFIRMED.
3