Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03215/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Acosta-Acevedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

.. 

.. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FIL .... J 

United States QJ" -·~ mApimlr Tenth Cf-.,nft 

Nov s 1esz 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

JESUS ACOSTA-ACEVEDO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 92-3215 

(D.C. No. 92-20013-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Jesus Acosta-Acevedo appeals his conviction in the United 

States District Court for the District of Kansas for violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. 

§ 1291 and affirm. 

I. 

Mr. Acosta-Acevedo is a Mexican citizen with a long history 

of deportation proceedings, including one deportation subsequent 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3215 Document: 010110145703 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 1 
to a 1986 conviction in Alameda County, California for the sale of 

heroin. On February 15, 1992, Acosta-Acevedo's past caught up 

with him when he was convicted of the illegal re-entry by an alien 

deported subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of 8 

u.s.c. § 1326 (a). 

A central element at his trial was linking the defendant with 

his prior felony conviction. The government offered three Alameda 

County documents as proof that the defendant was the same person 

convicted of the felony in California: (1) Exhibit 12 was a 

fingerprint card containing the defendant's fingerprint and the 

file number ALT276; (2) Exhibit 13 was a Criminal Information with 

the file number ALT276; and (3) Exhibit 14 was a Commitment to 

state prison with the file number ALT276. In conjunction with 

Acosta-Acevedo's known fingerprints, these documents conclusively 

linked the defendant with the heroin conviction. 

Mr. Francisco Theus testified for the government regarding 

the documents pertaining to Acosta-Acevedo's felony conviction in 

California. Mr. Theus testified that he had been an employee of 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") in San 

Francisco since 1983. He testified that since 1988 he had been 

the INS agent assigned to the Alameda County Narcotics Task Force 

("Task Force"). He further testified that, pursuant to his Task 

Force duties, he worked with local law enforcement agencies--

including the Alameda County Sheriff's Office -- and was familiar 

with both their records and their recordkeeping practices. 

Finally, Mr. Theus's testimony established the requirements for 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3215 Document: 010110145703 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 2 
admission of the Alameda County documents under the business 

records hearsay exception. 

Acosta-Acevedo objected at trial to the admission of this 

evidence under Rules 602 and 803(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. He argued that Mr. Theus's testimony did not establish 

a proper foundation for a Rule 803(6) business records hearsay 

exception because Mr. Theus lacked personal knowledge of Alameda 

County's recordkeeping practices. In particular, Acosta-Acevedo 

noted that Mr. Theus was not a Task Force member in 1986, when the 

documents were made. The trial court overruled Acosta-Acevedo's 

continuing objection and admitted the testimony and the records. 

Mr. Acosta-Avecedo elected not to further pursue Mr. Theus's 

qualifications as a proponent of the Alameda County records. 

II. 

We review the district court's decision to admit or exclude 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. HernandezHerrera, 952 F.2d 342, 343 (10th Cir. 1991). The essence of Mr. 

Acosta-Acevedo's argument is that Mr. Theus failed to establish 

that he had personal knowledge regarding Alameda County's 

recordkeeping practices and thus was unable to supply the 

foundation for a business record hearsay exception under Rule 

803(6). We disagree. 

"[T]here is no requirement that the party offering a business 

record produce the author of the item." FDIC v. Staudinger, 797 

F.2d 908, 910 (10th Cir. 1986). Rather, the elements of a 

business record hearsay exception can be established by any person 

with sufficient knowledge of the recordkeeping system at hand. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3215 Document: 010110145703 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 3 
It is undisputed that Mr. Theus worked with Alameda County 

law enforcement officials and was exposed to their recordkeeping 

practices. Given that, Acosta-Acevedo appears to argue that the 

government has not demonstrated precisely how that exposure 

provided Theus with personal knowledge of Alameda County's 

recordkeeping practices. We decline Acosta-Acevedo's invitation 

to impose such a demanding requirement in this case. 

While Mr. Theus may not have been the most qualified person 

to testify to Alameda County's recordkeeping practices, the 

district court was certainly within its discretion in finding him 

to be~ qualified person. Rule 602 provides that a "witness may 

not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient 

to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of 

the matter." Fed. R. Evid. 602. Mr. Theus testified that he was 

familiar with Alameda County recordkeeping practices because he 

worked with the local law enforcement agencies. We hold that this 

testimony was sufficient to support a finding of personal 

knowledge, especially given the defense's failure to further 

explore the nexus between the witness's experience and purported 

personal knowledge on cross-examination. See United States v. 

Davis, 792 F.2d 1299, 1304-05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 

964 (1986). Accordingly, Mr. Theus's testimony established a 

proper foundation for a Rule 803(6) hearsay exception and the 

evidence was properly admitted. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3215 Document: 010110145703 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 4