16-1865-cr United States v. Estevez UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 16-1865-cr JIMMY ESTEVEZ, MIGUEL ESTEVEZ, AKA DOMI, JOSUE ORTIZ, AKA SUA, ROBINSON CRUCETTS, AKA ROBI, MARTIN RODRIGUEZ, WILLIAM SUAREZ, AND IVAN ESTRADA, Defendants, CARLOS GABRIEL ESTEVEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR APPELLANT: Steven Y. Yurowitz, New York, New York. 1 FOR APPELLEE: Geoffrey M. Stone, Assistant United States Attorney, Sandra S. Glover, Assistant United States Attorney (on the brief) for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Shea, District Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Carlos Estevez (“Estevez”) was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and substantive possession with intent to distribute and distribution of more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(i). He argues on appeal that (1) the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to ask leading questions during direct examination of witnesses at trial; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to those leading questions; (3) his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated when the district court did not permit his trial counsel to recross a witness; and (4) the district court’s calculation of the amount of heroin attributable to him was erroneous. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We ordinarily review the district court’s allowance of leading questions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 2000). However, where defense counsel below did not object to questions as leading, the defendant’s claim is reviewed for 2 plain error. See United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41-42 (2d Cir. 2010). We have held ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals