United States v. Modesto Ramirez-Arreola

978 F.2d 717 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Modesto RAMIREZ-ARREOLA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50630. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 13, 1992. * Decided Oct. 16, 1992. Before BEEZER, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Modesto Ramirez-Arreola appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Ramirez contends that the district court violated his constitutional right of confrontation by limiting his cross-examination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's limitation on the extent of cross-examination. United States v. Guthrie, 931 F.2d 564, 568 (9th Cir.1991). 4 A district court does not violate the confrontation clause by limiting cross-examination, provided that…