On April 14, 2026, a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas issued a memorandum and order both dismissing the indictment against Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez, a Mexican citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident, and, “alternatively,” acquitting him of all charges stemming from an alleged scheme to bribe Mexican government officials. In December 2025, a jury had found Rovirosa guilty of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and two counts of violating the FCPA for his alleged role in the payment of bribes to officials with Petróleos Mexicanos (“PEMEX”), Mexico’s state-owned oil company, and its wholly owned subsidiary PEMEX Exploración y Producción (“PEP”). As described below, U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt acquitted Rovirosa of all charges “based on a lack of evidence to support [the] conviction in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.”
In August 2025, Rovirosa and his co-defendant Mario Alberto Avila Lizarraga were charged with violating the FCPA and conspiring to violate it through the payment of bribes to at least three PEMEX and PEP officials between at least 2019 and 2021. The defendants were accused of paying at least $150,000 in bribes to retain and obtain lucrative contracts with PEMEX and PEP worth approximately $2.5 million. According to federal prosecutors, Avila was never arrested for his role in the scheme and remains at large. As such, the Court granted Rovirosa’s motion to sever Avila from the case.
Rovirosa’s Sixth Amendment claims related to Spanish to English translations of electronic messages between Rovirosa and Avila, and between Avila and other alleged co-conspirators. The court determined that the messages were “testimonial” in nature because they were “translations . . . used to establish” the government’s case. Given this, the Court determined that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment required that the translators of the messages should have been made available by the government for cross-examination before or during the trial, and the government had not introduced any evidence that the translators were unavailable for such cross-examination.
The government argued that the testimony of Special Agent Maria Elena Varga, who reviewed the translations and certified their accuracy, and Rovirosa’s ability to cross-examine Varga resolved the Confrontation Clause issue. However, the Court described translations as both an “art” and a “science,” which required allowing Rovirosa to cross examine the translators themselves. Thus, Varga’s availability did not change the Court’s conclusion.
The Court also criticized the government for never producing the original Spanish messages in “forensic copies,” as well as failing to introduce them as evidence at trial. Without elaborating, the Court stated these failures were “also fatal to the government’s case.” The Court concluded by granting Rovirosa’s “motion to dismiss” the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c), which allows a court to “set aside the [jury’s] verdict and enter an acquittal.” “[A]lternatively,” the Court also acquitted Rovirosa of all charges based “on [a] lack of evidence to support his conviction in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.”
Memorandum and Order Dismissing Indictment and Granting an Acquittal | Indictment