United States v. Almaraz-Muniz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-40701
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-40701 Document: 75-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-40701 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 28, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gilberto Almaraz-Muñiz,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22-CR-900-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Gilberto Almaraz-Muñiz appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, 400 grams or more of fentanyl, and five kilograms or more of cocaine; (2) possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin; (3) possession

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-40701 Document: 75-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2025

No. 24-40701

with intent to distribute more than 400 grams of fentanyl; and (4) possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Almaraz-Muñiz’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights by permitting a witness with a serious medical issue to testify remotely via a two-way Zoom video conference. We review this preserved confrontation challenge de novo. See United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650, 656 (5th Cir. 2017). In light of the need to protect the medically-compromised witness and given that the district court ensured that the applicable technology was operative and afforded both parties a sufficient means to observe and question the witness, Almaraz-Muñiz has not demonstrated that the district court violated his confrontation rights by permitting the remote video testimony. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 844, 850 (1990); Horn v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 306, 317-18 (5th Cir. 2007). Moreover, even if we assumed there was a confrontation error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Kizzee, 877 F.3d at 661-62. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.