Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

V M ,H.it_,,_u.L...L...J...-i-.L.. ”“‘*';·"··—··1·-“'";""*‘;"
- 04 U Z[2QQ6 Eagg 1 of 1
| , _ _ ‘·Case 3:00-cr-00227-SRU Document 1484 Flled
F , H ` ~ n ,3 1.: . D¤C0nn•
i ,. "' & atl? t 00-cr-227
. "· ·.¤" I;·` LJ j__ hr Mimi,} ff is J I aww`! J.
United States Court of Appeals l
, For me |
I SECOND CIRCUIT
n _ 1
I _ _ At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
I C1rcuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in i
[ the City of New York, on the 13th day of March, two thousand six, I
· Present:
f Hon. John M. Walker, Jr.,
( Chief Judge, .. ; wg`;}
Hon.José A. Cabranes, {Nap EW t¢TiYE?i"O’ca"»<>,,,
Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler, gr- _ S";
Circuit Judges. ’ lp MAR 7 3 2006 _@ “’°
._<,-:;””i"· M¤·r¤<¤¤‘¤¤**" if?
United States of America, OONQ__Cli·lG§/
, Appellee, ;_
v. Ne. 02-1 ·
=¤. `E iF`? ZE .t,.»..;.
Charles DeJesus, Edward Estrada, Benito Rosario, fi i ii
Defendants—Appellants. _, ; ii `CLQ lim i
{,3 QQ iii?
The Government moves to dismiss Appellant Charles DeJesus’s appeaimlggyon due
consideration, it is ORDERED that the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeail is GRANTED
and the appeal is DISMISSED, for substantially the same reasons discussed in the appeals docketed
under numbers 02-1543-cr, 02-1545-cr (XAP), and 02-1626-cr (CON), concerning DeJesus’s ( _
co-defendants, Felix Delesus and Ricardo Rosario. In those appeals, we found that: (1) the district. , -
court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence about the religious beliefs of cooperating; ` C
witnesses or specific details of witness Frank Estrada’s ongoing cooperation ageement with the
Government; (2) the district court’s evidentiary error in excluding the statutory names of witnesses’
felony offenses under Rule 609(a)(l) of the Federal Rules of Evidence was harmless and did not
offend the Confrontation Clause; and (3) the district court did not misapply Rule 6()9(a)(2) to
exclude witness Ismael Padi1la’s misdemeanor larceny convictions. We incorporate by reference the
discussion of these issues, which appears in the summary orders affirming Felix DeJesus’s and
p Ricardo Rosa1io’s convictions. A
FOR THE COURT: -
Roseann MacKechnie, erk .
USC»\l'v|K U ` R0 S A ` 5 ` l V
eann ‘: .-_. _ .
| I1. Li; 1e, g;;g;,E;;sKi
_ V ` L 1 N l- - ,, ` { _,_, , _ jr- -, {Q1 .; ,—..,·--;— ZZ-t,gi-_Z,—»=:~.·.·¢xrv.-;§i..·¤5:s;.t%J'¥:€"i
·-e`e i’-ISSUED AS MANDATEI i of 06 5;-rg. , _ _ I » -:—= Q
ts tat. . 5=·*=·1»—-V C T N it
E C C F I ` _r_r_r_r
_ I : i- ; i __ i _ V 7 , , _ _ _ .- . ;. ‘—·v -;_r _ ,r_;. .i_-r;_= V -1; *. ;T \?Kj.*3j—'L"}f~€ ‘_;.»_- ·; ' ·,~¤;{1.,_»~. 3,;; Q,;;;j;1L=-;:§'s·:.ti~. » -“.._‘