Transportes Juventino Rosas, thus any questioning on the issue for the first time on redirect was impermissible. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecutor’s objections. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Romero’s counsel’s request to recall Romero to the stand. The district court’s exercise of its discretion was consistent with our precedent. For example, in United States v. James, 510 F.2d 546 (5th Cir.1975), we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant the opportunity to recall a witness even where a subsequent witness “gave a slightly different account of the occurrences;” this was particularly so for a “point of limited significance.” Id. at 551; see also Masat, 948 F.2d at 933 (<HOLDING>). Here, the proposed testimony was even less
holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant an opportunity to recall a witness who had already testified and been subject to crossexamination