USA v. Alberto Moreno, No. 12-50639 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-50639 Document: 00512372802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50639 Summary Calendar September 13, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALBERTO MORENO, also known as Viejo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:11-CR-189-5 Before JOLLY, SMITH, AND CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alberto Moreno appeals his convictions following a jury trial of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and conspiring to commit money laundering. Moreno fails to show that his right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community was violated; he cites only the composition of the randomly chosen venire at his own trial and does not attempt to show a systematic exclusion of minorities from other venires over time in the Western * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-50639 Document: 00512372802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2013 No. 12-50639 District of Texas s jury selection process. See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979); United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 568 (5th Cir. 2001). Likewise, while he claims that the district court abused its discretion by limiting his Confrontation Clause rights to cross-examine Government witnesses, he fails to cite any evidence showing that he was clearly prejudiced by the limitations of which he complains. See United States v. Landerman, 109 F. 3d 1053, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally, Moreno does not identify with specificity any instance in which the district court refused to admit into evidence the criminal conviction of any Government witness. See FED. R. EVID. 609. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.