United States v. Brittan Kettles , 517 F. App'x 514 ( 2013 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0287n.06
No. 12-5735
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Mar 22, 2013
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
BRITTAN KETTLES, ) COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: MARTIN, GUY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Brittan Kettles, who is represented by counsel, appeals his conviction
following a jury trial on two counts of counterfeiting and two counts of dealing in counterfeit
currency. The district court sentenced Kettles to twenty-four months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Kettles objects to the admission of evidence from his account on the social
network Facebook. Kettles put a link on his Facebook page to a YouTube video of himself in which
he is seen throwing large amounts of money on the floor. The video itself was not admitted, but a
private chat between Kettles and one of his friends after he posted the video link was admitted. In
the chat, the friend states: “Dat money fake on dem videos.” Kettles responds: “i know that.”
Kettles argues that the evidence was ambiguous, and that he and his friend were actually
discussing similar videos by hip-hop artists of which his own video was a parody. He also argues
that the challenged statement was hearsay, and that the district court abused its discretion in
admitting the chat because it prejudiced the jury against him.
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Harris v. J.B. Robinson
Jewelers, 627 F.3d 235, 240 (6th Cir. 2010). Kettles argued that the evidence before the district
court was ambiguous. The court noted that Kettles could present to the jury his theory of whether
the discussion referred to the video Kettles posted or the hip-hop artists’ videos, and the transcript
shows that Kettles did make this argument to the jury. The jury either believed that the discussion
concerned the video of Kettles or that it was not material to the case, as will be discussed below. No
abuse of discretion by the district court is apparent on this issue.
Kettles next argues that the statement “Dat money fake on dem videos” was improperly
admitted as hearsay. However, the statement was not hearsay because Kettles manifested an
adoption or belief in its truth by responding “i know that.” See United States v. Jinadu, 98 F.3d 239,
244 (6th Cir. 1996).
Finally, Kettles argues that the evidence was erroneously admitted because it prejudiced the
jury. The government argues that Kettles raised no such objection below, and therefore the
admission of the evidence should be reviewed only for plain error. Regardless of the standard of
review, however, we will reverse only if the alleged error was not harmless; that is, where it affected
the outcome of the trial. See United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 1042 (2012). In this case, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The
government introduced recordings of telephone calls in which Kettles agreed to make and sell
counterfeit currency, and a large amount of counterfeit currency, still uncut, was found in the search
of his residence. Therefore, whether the jury believed that Kettles was discussing the money in his
own video in the challenged Facebook discussion could not have affected the outcome of this trial.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
2