United States v. Kassimu , 188 F. App'x 264 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-31087
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LUKMAN KASSIMU
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:04-CR-20029-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lukman Kassimu was convicted by a jury of attempting to pass
an altered United States postal money order. He was sentenced to
six months of imprisonment and to a three-year term of supervised
release. On appeal, Kassimu argues that the district court
abused its discretion in allowing the Government to introduce
postal records into evidence under the business 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-31087
-2-
A business record can be authenticated by testimony of
either the “custodian” of the record or an “other qualified
witness.” FED. R. EVID. 803(6). An “other qualified witness” is
defined as “one who can explain the record keeping system of the
organization and vouch that the requirements of Rule 803(6) are
met.” United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.
1989). There is no requirement, as Kassimu contends, that the
witness laying the foundation for the admissibility of computer
records “be the one who entered the data into the computer or be
able to attest personally to its accuracy.” United States v.
Hutson, 821 F.2d 1015, 1019-20 (5th Cir. 1987). Postal Inspector
Brandon Tullier’s testimony satisfied the authentication
requirement because he explained his familiarity with the
procedure by which the records were generated and established the
requirements of FED. R. EVID. 803(6). Thus, Kassimu has failed to
show that the district court abused its discretion in admitting
the postal records. See United States v. Wells, 262 F.3d 455,
459 (5th Cir. 2001).
Kassimu also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
prove that he knew the money order had been altered and that he
acted with the intent to defraud. Because Kassimu presented no
evidence at trial, his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at
the close of the Government’s case, was timely and sufficed to
preserve this issue for review. See United States v. Resio-
Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this
No. 05-31087
-3-
court “assess[es] the sufficiency of evidence [to] determine
whether, viewing the evidence and the inferences that may be
drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, a
rational jury could have found the essential elements of the
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Gadison,
8 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The evidence need not exclude every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be inconsistent with every
conclusion except that of guilt. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d at 911.
In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence from which the
jury could infer that Kassimu knew the money order he attempted
to pass had been altered and that he acted with the intent to
defraud. See United States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380, 387 (5th
Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Kassimu’s conviction is AFFIRMED.