United States v. Jose Belloc-Hernandez , 667 F. App'x 507 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-50512
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 27, 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE LUIS BELLOC-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-436-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Luis Belloc-Hernandez was convicted after a jury trial of being
found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He
argues that the district court abused its discretion when it permitted
the Government to introduce into evidence documents from Belloc-
Hernandez’s alien file (“A-file”), which showed that Belloc-Hernandez lacked
documentation to be present in this country.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
No. 15-50512
We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Ned, 637 F.3d 562, 569 (5th Cir. 2011). Federal
Rule of Evidence 803(6) creates an exception to the hearsay rule for a record
kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, if, among other
things, it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record,
“as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.” FED.
R. EVID. 803(6); see also United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 792 (5th Cir.
2008).
Belloc-Hernandez argues that the Government’s witness, Border Patrol
Agent Petersen, was not the custodian of his A-file and was not an “other
qualified witness.” We have held that a qualified witness for purpose of Rule
803(6) is one who can explain the system of record keeping and vouch that the
requirements of the Rule 803(6) are met; such a witness need not have personal
knowledge of the record keeping practice or the circumstances under which the
objected to records were kept. United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345, 356 (5th Cir.
1995); see also United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 1989).
Agent Petersen described the procedure for storing A-files at the El Paso
facility and the authentication procedure for files that are reproduced. She
also testified that Belloc-Hernandez’s file had been made and preserved in the
regular course of the agency’s business and in accord with the agency’s
procedures. Although Petersen could not give the names of individuals at the
El Paso facility who were “custodians” of Belloc-Hernandez’s file while it was
there, she nevertheless adequately explained the agency’s record keeping
system. See Box, 50 F.3d at 356. Thus, Belloc-Hernandez fails to show that
the district court abused its discretion when it admitted documents from his
A-file into evidence under Rule 803(6). See Box, 50 F.3d at 356; Iredia, 866
F.2d at 120.
2
Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
No. 15-50512
AFFIRMED.
3