### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-2912

U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

T H OMA S V I TR

AN O , Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the

Eastern Distri ct o f Wi sconsi n. No. 2: 09 -cr- 00 14 0 — Lynn Ad el man , Judg e.
A RG U E D F E B R

UAR Y 19, 2014

— D E C I D E D A P RI L 4, 2014

Before P O S N E R

, R I P PL E, and K ANN E, Circ uit Judges.

K AN N E, Cir cui t Judge. Thi s case marks the fi fth tim e Thomas Vi tr ano has appeared before us since hi s convic tion for possess i ng a fi rear m as a fe lon and whi le under a domesti c abus e injuncti on. He has already exhausted hi s appeals for those ini tial convic tions and sentence, whi ch he challen ged in part by fabri cati ng a W i scons i n di sch arg e certifi cate. No w he2 No. 13-2912 appeals hi s sub sequent convic tion for the fraud and perj ury he commi tte d i n those prior pro ceedings.

I. B A C K G R O U N D Ov er a decade ago, Thomas Vit r a no pled gui lty to one count of possess i ng a fi rear m as a felo n a nd one count of possess i ng a fi rear m whi le subject to a domesti c abus e i njunction. He w as sentenced to 30 y ears i n pris on under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) , becau se he had prior convic tions for escape and reckless endanger

ment. 1 In Mar ch 2008, Vi tr ano fi led a pro se motio n under 28 U.S

. C

. § 2255, seeki ng a reducti on i n hi s sentence becau se hi s bus i ness partner

, S co t t V

alona, had allegedly found a di sch arg e certifi cate relat i ng to hi s 1977 convic tion for reckless endangerment. If v ali d, the c ert i fi cate w ould hav e purged the reckless endangerment convic tion from Vi tr ano’s cri minal hi stor y for ACCA purposes and thus precluded the statute’s appli cati on to hi m.

The appli catio n of the ACCA gene r at e d a seri es of appeals b y b oth 1 Vi trano and th e gov ernment. See United Sta tes v. Vitrano , 4 05 F.3 d 5 06 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (o n government appeal, hol di ng tha t the ACCA appli ed b ecause Vi trano coul d not pro duce a di scha rge statem ent whose l anguage coul d reasonab l y b e read to hav e resto red all of his ci v i l ri ghts and remanding fo r resentenci ng); United States v. Vitran o , 4 95 F.3d 38 7 (7 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (o n def ense appeal fro m resentenci ng, affi rming the 30 -year sentence i mposed
u nd e r t he ACCA ); Vitrano v. United States , 64 3 F.3d 22 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (va cating the di stric t cour t’s di smissal of Vi trano’s 22 55 moti on); Vitrano v. United States , 7 2 1 F

. 3 d 80 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (affi rming the di stric t cour t’s di smissal o f Vi trano’s 22 55 moti on o n remand).No. 13-2912 3
But the certifi cate w as not v ali d. Both the copy Vi tr ano sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, T obacco, and Firearms and the copy Vi tr a no kept for hi mself w ere “prov ably fake.” Although Vi tr ano (wh o re fe r red to hi mself i n a lette r to V alona as “the laminator ”) att empted to prev ent forensi c testing of hi s copy of the document by cov ering i t i n Scot ch tape, i t di ffered from

v ali d di sch a rg e c e rt i fi c a te s i n prin tin g method, formatt i ng, font si ze, a nd paper type. W i th thi s evidenc e before i t, the di stric t court denied Vi tr ano’s § 2255 motion. After deter mini ng that the certifi cate w as fake, the government charged Vi tr ano wi th p e rj ur y , 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), atte mpti ng to corr uptly influ ence offi ci al proceed ings, 18 U.S.C. § 1 5 1 2 (c )( 2 ), a nd t hr e a t e nin g a wi tness, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). The case proceeded to a j ur y tr i al. T esti fyi ng for the gover nment, V

alona explain ed that Vi tr ano had sent hi m the fo r g ed certifi cate; V

alona had not found i t, as Vi tr ano ha d alleged in pre v ious fi li ngs. The government also play ed tw o phone calls Vi tr ano made to V alona from pris on. V i tr ano objecte d to the phone calls on Confro ntation Claus e gr ounds, ci tin g Melend e z- D i az v

. Massa chuse tts , 557 U.S. 305 (2009). The court ruled the calls admi ssi ble, finding that t he r e had “been enough testim on y intro duced

... to establi sh [that they w ere Vi tr ano’s phone calls ] to g et them admi tte d.” The jury fo und Vi tr ano guil ty o n all coun ts.

II. A N A L

Y S I S Vi tr ano asserts that the di stric t court violat e d his rights under the Confro ntation Clause by admi tting hi s phone calls4 No. 13-2912

to V alona wi thout subjecting the techni cian who pulled the phone calls to cross-examinati on. In the alter nati v e, he arg ues that the di stric t court’s chain-of-c ustody analysi s w as faulty and should not hav e resulted i n the admi ssi on of the challenged phone calls. A. Confrontat ion Clause The Sixth Am e n d m e n t’ s C onfro n ta ti on C lause prohibi ts the admi ssi on of testim oni al hearsay again st a cri minal defendant unles s tw o condit io ns are met: (1) the declarant mus t be
unav ai lable to testif

y and (2) the defendant mus t hav e had a prior oppor tuni ty for cross-examinati on. Crawford v
. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). The Clause appli es only to “testim oni al” statements, a catego ry that has proven di ffi cult to define. Davis v
. W

ashington , 547 U.S. 813, 823–26 (2006) (Confrontat i on Clause appli es only to testim oni al statements); United States v
. T urn e r, 7 0 9 F .3d 1187, 1194 (7th Ci r
. 2013) (ass uming that repo rt w as t esti moni al in t he absence of clear Supreme Court precedent). In Melendez-Diaz v
. Massa chuse tts , the Supreme Court held that “certifi cates of analysi s”—sw or n statements i n whi ch s ta te analysts asserted, based on laborat or y testing, that a se ized sub stance w as cocaine—w ere testim oni al. 557 U.S. at 309–11. The certifi cates fell wi thi n the “core clas s of testim oni al statements” becau se they w ere essenti ally affi davits and w ere thus “func tionally i denti cal to l ive, i n-c ourt testim ony , doin g ‘precis ely wha t a wi tness does on di rect examinati on.’” Id. at 310–11 (quoti ng Davis , 547 U.S. at 830). The swor n nature of these statements w as not essenti al; rat her , i t w as di sposi tiv e that the certifi cates w ere “‘i ncontro v ert ibl y

... affi rmation[s ]No. 13-2912 5 made for the purpo se of establi shing or prov i ng some fact’ i n a cri minal proceeding.” Bullc oming v
. New Mexico , 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2716–17 (2011) ( quoting Melendez-Diaz , 557 U.S. at 310).
Vi tr ano s ei zes on the Melendez-Diaz li ne of cases, asserting that the pris on techni ci an who prepar ed the CDs should hav e been called to testif

y at tr i al. But Vi tr ano h as fai led to i denti fy what preci sely the “mi ssing” a na lyst di d or sai d that w as hearsay , much less testim oni al hearsay

. U nlike in MelendezD i az a nd i ts prog eny

, w e hav e no repo rt i n whi ch the pris o n techni ci an states, aft e r analysi s, that Vi tr ano w as urging V alona to li e or threat eni ng hi m. Perhaps there w as a certifi cation that the calls w ere stor ed and pulled i n the normal fash i on, but Vi tr ano does not identi fy i t. 2 Preparing an exhib i t for tr i al i s not i n i tself testim oni al; w e hav e prev iously ruled that “an exper t who giv es testim ony about the nature of a sus pected contro lled sub stance may rely
on information gather ed and produced by an analyst who doe s not hi mself testif

y .” T urn er, 709 F .3d at 1190. There w as thus no need for the government to call t he techni ci an who prepar ed Exhibi t 9 as a wi tness, and no violati on of Vit r ano’s Sixth Amendment ri ghts. B. Chain of Cu stody In the alternativ e, Vi tr ano argues that the gov ernment di d not lay an approp riate chain of cus tody foundati on for the

In any event, such a certi fi catio n woul d l i kel y b e non-testi moni al. United 2 States v. Ellis , 46 0 F.3d 92 0, 9 2 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ) (cer tif i catio n ass erti ng tha t
reco rds sub mitted were reco rds kept i n the or di nary cour se of b usiness was non-testi moni al).6 No. 13-2912

p ho ne calls

. He asserts that a proper foundati on w ould ha ve i nclu ded the testim ony of the i nv esti gating offi cers, ci tin g United S tat es v . Collin s , 715 F .3d 1032 (7th Ci r . 2013).
W e r e v i ew the di stric t court’s evidenti ary ruli ngs on the chain of cus tody of physi cal exhibi ts under the leni ent abuseof-di screti on standard. United States v
. Prieto , 549 F .3d 513, 524 (7th Ci r
. 2008). At tr i al , the government mus t show that the exhib i t bei ng offered i s i n sub stanti ally the sam e co ndi tion i t

w as i n at the tim e of the cri me. United States v
. Lee , 5 0 2 F .3d 691, 697 (7th Ci r
. 2007). When the evidenc e i s i n poli ce cus tody , a presumpti on of reg ulari ty appli es; i n the absenc e of evidenc e to the contrar y

, w e assu me the poli ce di d not tamper w i th the evidenc e. United States v
. T atum , 548 F

. 3 d 5 8 4, 587 (7th Ci r
. 200 8 ). And any gaps i n the chain of cus tody go to the w ei ght giv en the evidenc e, not i ts admi ssi bi li ty

. Prieto , 5 4 9 F .3d at 524–25. In Vi tr ano’s case, the government establis hed t he chain o f
cus tody for the phone calls thro ugh the testim ony of Li eutenant T ro y Far del and A

TF Speci al Agent John Adamson. Far del
ov ersaw t he pris on’s response to the sub poena fo r t he phone calls

. He tes t ifie d that he di rected a techni ci an to search for phone calls made using Vi tr ano’s uni que “T AC” numb er

. The pris on’s phone sy st em used v oic e-recogniti on technology to prev ent inmates from using other T AC numb ers when making phone calls

. Upon receiving the phone call recor di ngs from the techni ci an, Far del made tw o CDs that cont a ine d a tot al of 27 calls

. Far del then gav e these CDs to Spe cia l A g ent Adamson, who maintai ned cus tody of the di scs and created Exhi bi t 9 for tr i al.No. 13-2912 7
Thi s evidenc e, coupled wi th the presumpti on of reg ulari ty , w as more than suffi ci ent for the tr i al court to conclu de that the phone calls w ere in sub stanti ally the same condi tion that they

w ere at the tim e they w ere made. The di strict court di d not abus e i ts di screti on in admi tting the phone calls.
Vi tr ano also arg ues i n hi s reply bri ef t ha t t he phone calls should not hav e been admi tte d because they w ere i nsu ffi

ci ently authenti cated. He di d not make t hi s arg ument in hi s i ni tial bri ef before thi s court, and the i ssu e i s there fore w ai v ed. United S tat es v . Mat chopato w , 259 F .3d 847, 851 (7th Ci r . 2001).

III. C O N C L U S I O N Vi tr ano’s atte mpt to shoehorn the facts of hi s case i nto our Co nf r o nt ation Clause precedent fai ls, as does hi s chain of
cus tody arg ument. W

e AFF IRM Vi tr ano’s convic tion.