USA v. Kevin Shorter

Filing 511159486

USA v. Kevin Shorter

Doc. 511159486

Case: 09-50773

Document: 00511159486

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50773 S u m m a r y Calendar June 30, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. K E V I N SHORTER D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 7:08-CR-281-1

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* K e v in Shorter appeals his conviction for possession with intent to d is t r ib u t e more than five grams of a mixture and substance containing a d e t e c t a b le amount of cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred by a d m it t in g physical and documentary evidence pertaining to the cocaine involved in his offense because the chain of custody of the cocaine was not sufficiently e s ta b lis h e d . S h o r t e r challenged the admission of the evidence below, and we therefore r e v ie w his claim for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-50773

Document: 00511159486 Page: 2 No. 09-50773

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

1 9 2 , 197 (5th Cir. 1997). "[A] `break in the chain of custody simply goes to the w e ig h t of the evidence, not its admissibility.'" Id. (quoting United States v. S p a r k s , 2 F.3d 574, 582 (5th Cir. 1993)). When the defendant questions the a u t h e n t ic it y of evidence, the district court must determine whether there is s u b s t a n t ia l evidence from which the jury could infer that the evidence is a u t h e n t ic . United States v. Jardina, 747 F.2d 945, 951 (5th Cir. 1984). The record establishes that the Government set forth sufficient evidence t o establish the authenticity of the disputed evidence. See id; United States v. S m ith , 481 F.3d 259, 264-65 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the district court did n o t abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence to be admitted. See Dixon, 132 F .3 d at 197. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2