Case: 20-60633 Document: 00515901138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 15, 2021 No. 20-60633 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Fortrell Latrae Sain, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:19-CR-62-3 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Fortrell Latrae Sain appeals his conviction following a jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and his sentence of, inter alia, 210 months in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raises six issues on appeal. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60633 Document: 00515901138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2021 No. 20-60633 First, Sain asserts that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by preventing him from fully cross-examining the confidential informant (CI) involved in his case. We review a Confrontation Clause claim de novo, subject to a harmless-error analysis. United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 781 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2731 (2020). In the absence of a constitutional violation, however, we review a limitation of cross-examination only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013). Sain’s Confrontation Clause claim is unpersuasive. Defense counsel had multiple opportunities to highlight the CI’s motivation to lie in the instant matter based on his criminal history, immigration status, and financial incentives, i.e., being paid by the government for building cases. See United States v. McCullough, 631 F.3d 783, 791 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433, 443 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, Sain does not identify what further information he would or could have elicited on these subjects that would have given the jury a “significantly different” view of the CI’s credibility. See Gentry, 941 F.3d at 781. As to the CI’s conduct in a prior, unrelated investigation, the lack of connection between the CI’s conduct and the dismissal of either that prior case or the instant matter supports the district court’s conclusion that the evidence was at best only marginally relevant and thus subject to limitation. See id.; Skelton, 514 F.3d at 442–43. With respect to the CI’s driver’s license and alleged drug use, the district court permitted sufficient cross-examination. See United States v. Maloof, 205 F.3d 819, 829 (5th Cir. 2000). In any event, we conclude that any error in limiting cross-examination on these subjects was harmless. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986); Skelton, 514 F.3d at 443. In his second challenge, Sain contends that the Government violated his due process rights by delaying or withholding potentially exculpatory evidence or evidence that could have been used for impeachment purposes. 2 Case: 20-60633 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals