United States v. Haughton

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20054
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MORRIS DACOSTA HAUGHTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-36
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Morris Dacosta Haughton was convicted by a jury of making a
false statement in an application for a United States passport
and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. Haughton asserts
that the district court abused its discretion by admitting at
trial evidence of a booking sheet from Haughton’s prior marijuana
arrest. He argues that the document was written as part of an
adversarial booking process and constituted hearsay that did not
fit within the public 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20054
-2-
Because Haughton’s booking information was taken in a
routine, nonadversarial setting, it was admissible under the
public records exception to the hearsay rule, and thus, the
district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States
v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 525-26 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v.
Quezada, 754 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1985).
Haughton also argues that the district court abused its
discretion in denying a motion to depose Haughton’s mother.
Haughton has not shown that the district court abused its broad
discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Dillman,
15 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 1994).
Haughton’s pro se motions requesting either the appointment
of new counsel or an order allowing him to file an amended pro se
brief, a pro se reply brief, and a motion to add an exhibit to
his pro se reply brief are denied. See United States v. Wagner,
158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.