United States v. Haughton , 235 F. App'x 254 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                    July 30, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-20054
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    MORRIS DACOSTA HAUGHTON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:05-CR-36
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Morris Dacosta Haughton was convicted by a jury of making a
    false statement in an application for a United States passport
    and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment.   Haughton asserts
    that the district court abused its discretion by admitting at
    trial evidence of a booking sheet from Haughton’s prior marijuana
    arrest.   He argues that the document was written as part of an
    adversarial booking process and constituted hearsay that did not
    fit within the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    No. 06-20054
    -2-
    Because Haughton’s booking information was taken in a
    routine, nonadversarial setting, it was admissible under the
    public records exception to the hearsay rule, and thus, the
    district court did not abuse its discretion.     See United States
    v. Torres, 
    114 F.3d 520
    , 525-26 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v.
    Quezada, 
    754 F.2d 1190
    , 1194 (5th Cir. 1985).
    Haughton also argues that the district court abused its
    discretion in denying a motion to depose Haughton’s mother.
    Haughton has not shown that the district court abused its broad
    discretion in denying the motion.    See United States v. Dillman,
    
    15 F.3d 384
    , 389 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Haughton’s pro se motions requesting either the appointment
    of new counsel or an order allowing him to file an amended pro se
    brief, a pro se reply brief, and a motion to add an exhibit to
    his pro se reply brief are denied.   See United States v. Wagner,
    
    158 F.3d 901
    , 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
    AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-20054

Citation Numbers: 235 F. App'x 254

Judges: Dennis, Jolly, Per Curiam, Prado

Filed Date: 7/30/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023