United States v. Magalde

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 00-51258
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA SOCORRO MAGALDE,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-97-CR-647-ALL-DB)
____________________________________________________________
July 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Maria Socorro Magalde on both counts of an
indictment charging her with possession with intent to distribute
marijuana and a related conspiracy. Magalde claims the
prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument improperly shifted the
burden of proof to her and invited the jury to convict her on the
basis of evidence outside the record.
As Magalde concedes, because her counsel did not object
contemporaneously to those comments, we review only for plain

-- 1 of 2 --

2
error. See United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1341 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 941 (1994); see also United States v.
Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S.
1112 (1999). In assessing whether the statements were improper, it
is, of course, necessary to look at them in context. United States
v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 514
U.S. 1132 (1995). “The burden of showing plain error is a heavy
one, and this court will notice plain error only in exceptional
circumstances.” Andrews, 22 F.3d at 1341 (internal quotation
marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
In any event, review of the comments in their proper context
reveals that none were improper. In short, there was no error,
much less plain error.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --