eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2011-09

United States v. Carl Jefferson , 446 F. App'x 553 ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL ARMSTEAD JEFFERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00221-HEH-1)
Submitted:   September 2, 2011           Decided:   September 13, 2011
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Grossman, CROWGEY, GROSSMAN & CASSIS, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.      Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Michael A. Jagels, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Armstead Jefferson was convicted of one count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     (2006), and one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g) (2006).
On   appeal,       he    claims    the    district    court     erred     by   admitting
evidence of the cocaine base when the chain of custody was not
established.        We affirm.
Under Fed. R. Evid. 901, the admission of an exhibit
must be preceded by “evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”                          This
rule    is   not    intended       to    be   “iron-clad”     and   is    satisfied   by
“sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be
and has not been altered in any material respect[.]”                              United
States v. Ricco,
    52 F.3d 58
    , 61-62 (4th Cir. 1995).                        The rule is
not intended to require exclusion of real evidence based on a
missing link in its custody.
    Id.
       The ultimate question focuses
on     “whether         the    authentication       testimony       was   sufficiently
complete so as to convince the court that it is improbable that
the original item had been exchanged with another or otherwise
tampered with.”               United States v. Howard-Arias,
    679 F.2d 363
    ,
366 (4th Cir. 1982).              Resolution of a chain of custody question
rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge.                            Ricco,
    52 F.3d at 61
    .
2
Jefferson        acknowledges           that        under      this       court’s
existing law, the cocaine base was admissible.                                He contends,
however, that had he been tried in a Virginia state court, the
evidence would have most likely not been admissible.                                He urges
this     court     to   adopt        Virginia’s         stricter        rules       regarding
establishing the chain of custody.
This court has set forth the applicable law in this
circuit regarding chain of custody issues.                        It is axiomatic that
a panel of this court may not overrule the holding of a prior
panel.     See United States v. Collins,
    415 F.3d 304
    , 311 (4th
Cir. 2005).         “[O]ur Constitution establishes a system of dual
sovereignty       between    the     States      and      the   Federal       Government.”
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
    501 U.S. 452
    , 457 (1991).                           “Foremost among
the    prerogatives     of    sovereignty          is    the    power    to     create      and
enforce a criminal code.”                  Heath v. Alabama,
    474 U.S. 82
    , 93
(2006).     “Because crime is traditionally viewed as an offense
against     the     sovereignty        of    the        government,      the        power   of
punishment       appertains     to    sovereignty,          and    may     be   exercised,
whenever the sovereign has a right to act, as incidental to his
constitutional powers[.]”              United States v. Alvarado,
    440 F.3d 191
    , 197 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).         Furthermore,       the    district       court    does      not    have   an
inherent power “to develop rules that circumvent or conflict
3
with    the   Federal    Rules   of   Criminal     Procedure.”         Carlisle   v.
United States,
    517 U.S. 416
    , 426 (1996).
The    district    court   was    without      authority    to    adopt
Virginia’s rules applicable to establishing the chain of custody
of controlled substances in criminal prosecutions.                     The district
court    properly      recognized     that     under   the    holdings     of    this
circuit, the chain of custody was sufficiently established and
the challenged evidence was admissible.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.                  We
dispense      with    oral   argument     because      the     facts     and    legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4