United States v. Ernest Roberts ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST RAYMOND ROBERTS, a/k/a Balla Walla, a/k/a Balowala,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00178-MGL-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2018 Decided: November 13, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Irmo, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, J. Carra Henderson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Raymond Roberts appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for
possessing with intent to distribute and distributing crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Roberts contends that the district court abused its
discretion by admitting into evidence the crack cocaine that he sold to a confidential
informant because the Government did not establish an adequate chain of custody. We
affirm.
“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling concerning the
admissibility of evidence.” United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616, 629 (4th Cir. 2015).
“To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the
proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “It is up to the jury to decide whether
evidence is that which the proponent claims.” United States v. Kaixiang Zhu, 854 F.3d
247, 257 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Establishing a strict chain
of custody is not an iron-clad requirement, and the fact of a missing link does not prevent
the admission of real evidence, so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is
what it purports to be and has not been altered in any material respect.” United States v.
Summers, 666 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The evidence at trial established that, on February 22, 2016, Roberts sold 26.35
grams of crack cocaine to a confidential informant, who made the purchase at the
direction of agents of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”). After
making the purchase, the informant gave the narcotics to the lead SLED agent, who
2
immediately sealed the narcotics in a labeled SLED evidence kit for delivery to the SLED
laboratory for testing. The agent did not testify as to exactly when he delivered the
evidence to the laboratory, and the SLED worker who initially received the evidence kit
did not testify at trial. However, the forensic chemist who analyzed the narcotics
evidence testified that the evidence kit was sealed when she received it on March 2, 2016,
and that the substance in the kit was 26.35 grams of crack cocaine. Both the agent and
the chemist positively identified the narcotics introduced at trial as the same narcotics
that they, respectively, seized and analyzed. In light of this testimony, and the lack of
any indicia that anyone altered or tampered with the narcotics, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in deciding that the Government met its burden to authenticate the
narcotics under Rule 901(a).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We also deny Roberts’ motion
to file a pro se brief. See United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir.
2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3