United States v. Brown ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                      No. 97-4308
    MARCUS BROWN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CR-96-450-DWS)
    Submitted: October 20, 1997
    Decided: December 11, 1997
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Henry Dargan McMaster, TOMPKINS & MCMASTER, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
    Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus Brown appeals from his convictions on seven counts of
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute crack
    cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine, and possession with intent to
    distribute crack cocaine, 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846 (West 1981 &
    Supp. 1997), for which he was sentenced to 151 months imprison-
    ment. Brown's only claim on appeal is that the district court erred by
    admitting evidence of Brown's guilty plea to state charges based on
    the same conduct underlying Count 2 of the federal charges. We
    affirm.
    At Brown's trial, the government called Sumter County narcotics
    officer Mark Rosensteel to testify. Rosensteel stated, over Brown's
    objection, that Brown had pled guilty in South Carolina state court to
    a drug charge (Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine)
    which was based on the same facts as Count 2 of the federal indict-
    ment (Possession with Intent to Distribute crack cocaine on December
    1, 1994). Rosensteel's testimony was based on his involvement with
    Brown's arrest and his in-court identification of Brown's signature on
    the guilty plea document.1 Brown claims that Rosensteel's testimony
    constituted inadmissible hearsay entitling him to a new trial.
    This court reviews the district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse
    of discretion. United States v. Hassan El, 
    5 F.3d 726
    , 731 (4th Cir.
    1993). We find no abuse of discretion. First, Brown's guilty plea was
    not hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), which provides that a
    statement is not hearsay if it "is offered against a party and is (A) the
    party's own statement, in either an individual or representative capac-
    ity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption
    or belief in its truth." Second, the document itself could have been
    admitted as a self-authenticating document under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).2
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 The document itself was not introduced into evidence.
    2 Rule 901(a) provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or
    identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evi-
    dence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
    its proponent claims." Rule 901(b)(1) further provides that the testimony
    of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be con-
    forms with the requirements of the Rule.
    2
    Accordingly, we affirm Brown's conviction. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
    ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-4308

Filed Date: 12/11/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014