The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0066n.06 No. 08-6136 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, Plaintif f-Appellee

, v. PIER RE M. R OD RI GUEZ, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEFORE: M OORE an d ST RANCH, Cir cuit Judges; COHN, DistrictJudge. * COHN, District

Judge. This is a criminal case . Def endant- Appellant Pierre M. Rodrigue z (“Rodriguez”) a

ppeals his conviction and sentence of 385 months after a jury found him g uilty

of two counts of conspira cy

to commit robber

y , two counts of robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two counts of brandishinga fire arm duringand in re lation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Rodriguez argues that the district co u rt er red by prohibiting his lawyer f

rom

cross-e x amining a

g overnme nt witness about his prior theft convic tion and allowing fing erpr int evidenc e in the abse nce of the orig inal s o u rc e o f t he fing erpr ints. He also ar g ues that there was insufficient e vidence to s u p p o rt his conviction. For the rea sons set forth below, Rodriguez’s conviction will be af

firmed.United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

Rod ri g ue z do e s n ot c ha lle ng e his c on fe ssi on on a pp e a l; thu s, it i s n ot a dd

re sse d in thi s 1 opinion. - 2 - I. BACKG ROUND Rodrigue z’s case inv o l v es t wo robbe ries. The first robber y occur red at L as Amer icas Musicas, a music store, and the second robber y occur red at Russell’s Marke t, a conve nience store. The L as Amer icas Musicas robber y occur red on the eve ning of

Fe bruar y 14, 2006. Two men

e nte re d th e sto re c arr

ying guns an d d e mand e d th a t th e pr e g na nt c le rk on duty , M ari a

F ra g os a (“F rag osa”) , g ive them the money in the reg ister; Fr ag osa complied. Th e Rus se ll’ s Ma

rk e t r ob be ry

too k p la c e on Ma

rc h 23 , 20 06

. Tw o me n e nte re d the sto re in the ea rly morning hours. One man pointed a handgun at the store owner, Russell Reed ( “Ree d”), a nd demande d he turn ove r the money in the cash reg ister; Reed c omplied. The two men lef t the store at which time R eed gr abbed a gun, went outside, and saw the two men leaving the parkinglot in a black pickup tr

uck. Ree d fired the g un at, but did not hit, t he truc k. Rodrigue z was arr ested less than two months later af ter be ing implicate d by

another robber y suspect. Af

ter the arr est, the l ead investigator on the case, Charlie Wilder (“ Wil der” ), interr og ated Rodrigue z. W ilder aske d Rodrigue z questions i n Eng lish. Rodriguez resp o n d ed to W ilder’s quest io n s in

Sp an is h , Ro dr igu e z’ s n a ti v e la n g u a g e . A f

te r th e inte r r o g a ti o n , Wi ld e r

tr an s cribe d R o dri gu ez ’s co n fe s s i o nan d R o dri gu ez s i gn ed i t

. R o dri gu ez wa s l at er i d en t i fi edb y

R ee d d uri n g a 1 preliminary

court a ppear ance , which Rodriguez asserts wa s orche strated by Wil der. In May , 2008, Rodrigue z went to t ri al on a six-count indictment charg ing him with the Russell’s Market a

nd L as Americ as Musicas r obberie s, conspirac y to commit both robberies, andUnited States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 3 - br and ish inga

fi re arm duri ngbo th r ob be ri e s. Pr ior to t he sta rt of tria l, t

he g ov e rnme nt m ov e d to exclude Rodrigue z’s planned cr oss-examination of Wi lder a bout a past mi sdemea

nor theft conviction, for the purpose of impeachingWil der’ s cre dibilit y . The g overnme nt objected on the g round that the prior conviction was not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 609. Rodrigue z responded that, while the convic tion was “g ener ally inadmissible” beca

use it was ove r ten y ear s old, the court should allow t he cross-examination beca use “in the interest of justice [sic] t he probative value of the

c onvic tio n [w a s] su

pp or te d b y sp e c if ic fact s and

c ir c ums tanc e s su

bs tanti a lly

outw e ig h[in g ] its prejudicia l effe ct.” The g overnme nt relied on a decision fr om this C ourt, United States v. Rattigan , No. 9 1 -00106, 1993 W L190910, *5 (6th Cir. J une 2, 1993), to a rgue that thef

t is not a crime of dis ho ne sty . T he dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e a g re e d wi th t he g ov e rnme nt a

nd g ra nte d th e mot ion , s tatin g , “ if the Six th Circuit finds that robbery is not a crime of d i s h o n es t y , o r false statement, how ca n I conclude that it’s in the interest of justice? ” The district court judg e fur ther stated, under Rule 609(a), I don’t think it’s a felony ; it’s a misdemeanor. I think it i s beyond the t ime limit s. Ialso find that, g iven that the Ra[tt] igan case finds that the cr ime of robber y is not a cr ime of dishonesty or fa lse statement, that the motion in limine to exclude this refe renc e should be g rante d. Severa l witnesses t estified at Rodrigue z’s trial. Reed identified Rodrigue z as one of the two

me n w ho c o mm i tte d th e Rus se ll’ s Ma rk e t r ob be ry

and te sti fi e d th a t Ro dr igue z sto le mon e y fr om h im at gunpoint. T wo s h er i ff’ s deputies testified that Rodriguez confe ssed to the Russell’s Marke t robber y . The de puties said Rodrigue z’s confession included de tails related to the br andishing of the g un, the other individuals involved, and the g et-a way car s used during the commission of the crime. Fr ag osa testified that two men in ski masks robbe d her at g unpoint, and the sec ond robber , CarlosUnited States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 4 - He rn and e z (“ He rn and e z”) , te sti fi e d th a t he and Rod ri g ue z co mmi tte d t he robbe ry tog e the r w ith assistance from two other individuals who waited in a g etawa y car . An offic er on the scene of the L as Ameri ca s M u sicas robbe ry testified that he view ed a surveillance v i d eo at t h e store, which de picted one of the robbe rs pickingup a CD duringthe robber y , but not taking it. After seeing the video, the office r testified that he dire cted a crime sc ene de te c tiv e to t

he are a wh e re the CD wa s loc a te d. Th e c ri me sc e ne de te c tiv e te sti fi e d th a t he wa s a ble to lift a fing erpr int from the CD, which he place d onto a fing erpr int card, a nd which wa s later e ntere d into evidence by

the g overnme nt. A fing erpr int e x p er t t es t i fied that she c ompare d the fing erpr int

car d to Rodrigue z’s finge rprints and the two f inge rprints matche d. Prior to the fing erpr int ex pert’s te stimony , Rodrigue z objected on cha in of custody g rounds that th e g ov e rnm ent faile d to link th e CD fr om whic h th e fi ng e rp ri nts we re lif te d to the e xac t CD touched by

one of the robber s. The dist rict court overr uled R odrig uez’s objection, conc luding that “ther e ha[d] been a suff

icien[t] showing of the c hain of c ustody .” At the c los e of

the g ov e rnme nt’ s c a se -i n- c hie f, Rod ri g ue z mov e d fo r a

jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l, which wa s denied. As previously stated, at the end of trial, the jury found Rodrig uez guilty

on two counts of conspira cy to c ommit robbery , two counts of robbe ry in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two counts of bra

ndishing a

firea rm during and in r elation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Rodriguez did not renew the Rule 29 motion af ter the ver dict was re ad. Rodriguez

wa s se nte nc e d to a

te rm of imp ri so nme nt o f 3 85 months

.United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 5 - II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Wil de r s’ P r iorThe ft C onv ic ti on Rod ri g ue z ch a lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to a llo w a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e on

or c ro ss examination of Detec tive Wil der r eg ardinga 1992 misdemea nor theft c onviction: theft of two horse s valued at less than $500. Rodrigue z co ntends that the district court e rre d in denying him the op po rt un ity to i mpe a ch W ilde r’ s c re dib ili ty un de r F e d. R. E vid . 6 09 and purs ua nt t o h is Si xth Am e ndme nt r ig ht o f c on fr on tatio n. Rod ri g ue z’s c la ims are wi tho ut m e ri t. B e cause Wil de r’ s th e ft

c onvic tio n w a s a

mis de me ano r, Rul e 60 9( a )( 2) a pp lie s to its admission, as does the stalene ss provision of Rule 609(b). A district court’s e videntiary ruling s are ordinarily revie wed by

this Court for an abuse of discre tion. United States v. J ohnson , 581 F.3d 320, 332 (6th Cir. 2009). This standard a pplies to a district court’s Rule 609(b) decisions. See, e .g. , United States v. Franc o , 484 F.3d 347, 353 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Fe d. R. Evid. 609(b) limit s , for the purpose of impea chment, the a dmissibi lity of prior

c onvic tio n e vid e nc e “ mor e tha n 1 0 y e ars old .” F e d. R. Ev id. 60 9( b) . T hat is , “ Rul e 60 9( b) c re a te s, in e ffe ct, a rebuttable presumption that convictions over ten y ear s old a re more preju d i ci al t han helpful and should be e x cluded.” United States v. Sims , 588 F.2d 1145, 1150 ( 6th Cir. 1978). Particularly , afte r re viewing the leg islative history of Rule 609(b), this Court has held that “ evidenc e of convictions more than ten y ear s old should be admitted very rar ely and only in exceptional and circ umstances.” United S t a t es v. Sloman , 909 F.2d 176, 181 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (interna l quotations omitted).United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

F e d. R. E vid . 6 09 (a )( 2) de te rm inatio ns a s to wh e the r a sp e c if ic c onvic tio n c on sti tut e s a 2 crime of dishonesty

or fa lse statement ar e re viewed de novo beca

use Rule 609(a )(2) remove s from the district cour

t any discretion in admitting e vidence of a pr ior conviction with an e lement of dishonesty

or fa lse statement. See U nited States v. Morrow , 977 F.2d 222, 228 ( 6th Cir. 19 92 ) ( e n b anc )) . Ins te a d, un de r t he ru le , e vid e nc e that a

wi tne ss h a s b e e n c onvic te d o f a c ri me with an eleme nt of dishonesty or fa lse statement “sha ll be admitted” without any balanc ing of pr e jud ic e or oth e r f a c tor s. Do e v . S

ull iv an Cou nty , 9 56 F .2 d 5 45 , 5 51 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) ; United Sta te s v . P e atros s , 377 F. App’ x 477, 489 (6th Cir. 2010). I t is unnecessa ry to addre ss this i ssue beca use the e vidence was prope rly excluded under Rule 609( b).

- 6 - In th is c a se , th e dis tr ic t court fo un d that Wilde r’ s 14- y e ar- old c onvic tio n w a s in a dmi ssi ble fo r s ta le ne ss u

nd e r R ule 60 9( b) . T hu s, e ven if we ass um e that th e the ft e vid e nc e wa s a dmi ssi ble under Rule 609( a)( 2) as a c rime involving a n element of

dishonesty

or fa lse statement, the district 2 court did not abuse its discre tion by excluding the c onviction under Rule 609(b)

. Rod ri g ue z al so c ha lle ng e s th e e xclu sio n o f Wi lde r’ s th eft con vi cti on a s a vio latio n o f h is Six th Amendment rig ht to confront his ac cuser s. Howeve r, R odrig uez did not make a Confr ontation Cla us e ob je c tio n to the dis tr ic t court ’s e vid e nti ary ru lin g s at th e tr ia l le ve l, a nd thu s w e re vie w h is argument now for pla in error

. Se e Un ite d S tates v . D e itz , 577 F.3d 672, 683 ( 6th Cir. 2009). “[T] he Confrontation Clause affords the rig ht to impeach a witness with his criminal rec ord, subject to the trial cour

t’s di s cretion to im pose re asonable limit ations to prevent ha rassment a

nd annoy ance of the witness.” Vasquez v. J ones , 4 8 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 3 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7) (discussing De law ar e v . V

an Ar sd all , 475 U.S. 673 (19 86) and Davis v. Alask a , 415 U.S. 308 (1974)). O n revie w, “[t] he key

issue is whether the jury had enough information to assess the de fense ’s theory of the case despite the limit s place d on cross-e x amination.” United States v. Holde n , 557 F.3d 698, 7 0 4 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Boggs v. Collins , 26 F.3d 728, 739 ( 6th Cir. 2000)).United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 7 - We m us t be min df

ul t o v ie w this sta

nd ard thr ou g h th e le ns of

pla in e rr or . In p art ic ula

r, in order to show plain err or, the d i s t ri ct cour t’s err or must have, inte r a lia , “af fec ted the appe llant’s substantial rig hts, i.e., af

fec ted the outcome of

the district court’s pr ocee dings.” Puck ett v. United States , 192 S. Ct. 1423, 1425 (2009) (interna l citations omit ted). Give n the streng th of the prosec ution’s evidence with reg ard to the Russell’s Mar ket robbery , in particular Rodrigue z’s

c on fe ssi on

and Mr . Re e d’ s p os iti ve ide nt if ica ti on of Rod ri g ue z as the a ssa ila

nt, it i s d if

fi c ult to imag ine how Rodrigue z’s a bility to c ross-examine Wil der on a 14-y ear -old misd em ea n o r t heft conviction would have chang ed the outcome of the trial. Thus, we find no violation of Rodrigue z’s Confrontation Clause rig ht that rises to a leve l of plain err or. For these re asons, we f

ind no error

in the district court’s e x clusion of Wi l d er ’s conviction

e vid e nc e fo r i mpe a c hme nt p ur po se s. B. Finger print Evid ence Rodrigue z nex t asserts that the district cour t ab u sed its discretion by allowing fing erpr int te sti mony on the g ro un d th a t th e g ov e rnme nt f a ile d to pr od

uc e the or ig ina l so ur c e of

the fi ng e rp ri nts , a CD, fr om which t he finge rprints wer e li fted. Instead, the fing erpr int expert testified based on a fing erpr int card, which Rodrig uez say s broke the chain of custody and tainted the admissibil ity of the fi ng e rp ri nt e vid e nc e . Ro dr igue z’s argume nt i s w ith out me ri t. A di strict court' s evidentiary decisions ar e re viewed f

or an a buse of discr etion. Ru sh v . I ll. Cent. R.R. Co. , 399 F .3 d 705 , 715 (6 th Cir . 200 5)

. Part ic ula rl y , fin g e rp ri nt ev ide nc e is a dmi ssi ble wh e n th e po ssi bil iti e s o f m isi de nti fi c a tio n o r a lte ra tio n a re “ e lim inate d, no t abso lut e ly , b ut a s a matter of r eason able pr obability .” United States v. Mc Fadden , 458 F.2d 440, 441 ( 6th Cir. 1972)United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 8 - (interna l citation omitt ed). A bsent a c lear

abuse of discretion, cha lleng es to the chain of custody do not go t o t h e admissibility of the e vidence

. United States v. Lev y , 904 F.2d 1026, 1030 ( 6th Cir. 1990). R ather , wher e dire ct testimony establishes that the de fenda nt handled the item fr om which fing erpr ints were obta ined, whethe r t he gover nment has proved an adequate chain of custody g oes to the weig ht of the evide nce. Un ite d S tates v . Cr ite , No. 92-6015, 1993 WL445084, *6 (6th Cir. No v . 2 , 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g McFadde n , su pra ). In other words, “the ve rdict depe nd[s] on whether the jury believe[s] the Unit ed S tates or the defendant.” Id. “This matter of cre dibilit y is for the jury , not the appellate court.” Id. (interna l citations omit ted). Her e, dire ct testimony

rea sonably

established that one of the robber s touched a CD and that the fing erpr ints li fted from a CD matched Rodrigue z’s f inge rprints. Fur

ther, a n adequate cha in of custody was e stablished in that fin gerp ri n t s we re lifted from a CD at the cr ime scene onto a fing erpr int c ard, which was enter ed into e vidence and evaluated by a fing erpr int e x pert, who conclude d that the fing erpr int on the car d mat ch ed that of Rodrigue z. Thus, R odrig uez has not proff ere d evidenc e to show a clea r abuse of discretion and the district cour t did not err in findingthat Rod ri g ue z’s c ha lle ng e we nt t o th e we ig ht o f t he e vid e nc e and

no t a dmi ssi bil ity . In o the r w or ds , it was up to the jury

to decide whether

it believed the g overnme nt or Rodrig uez, not this Court. Rod ri g ue z al so chal len ge s th e fi ng e rp ri nt e vid e nc e on la c k o f f ound atio n g ro un ds . T his claim is without merit. Under F ed. R. Evid. 703, “[t] he facts or data in the par ticular c ase upon which an e x pert ba ses an opinion or infe renc e may be those pe rce ived by

or made kno wn to the

e xpe rt a t or be fo re the he ari ng .” Furt her, un de r F e d. R. E vid . 9 01 (b )( 1) , e vid e nc e is p ro pe rl y authenticated when a

witness testifies that “a

matter is what it is claimed to be.”United States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 9 - As stated above , the fing erpr int expert’s testimony was ba sed on the fing erpr int card, which

wa s g ive n to he r p ri or

to t ri a l, a nd wh ic h c on ta ine d fin g e rp ri nts lif te d fr om the c ri me sc e ne . T hu s, the fi ng e rp ri nt c ard

wa s p ro pe rl y

re lie d o n a

nd a uth e nti c a te d und er Fed. R. E vid . 7 03 and F e d. R. Evid. 901. Acc ording ly , the district court did not err by admitting the f

inge rprint evidenc e. C. Suf fi ciency of the Evidence Finally , Rodrigue z arg ues t hat t he evidence is insufficient to support his conviction on the g round that there was no phy sical evide nce tying him to the robbe ries. Rodriguez also asserts that the victim identifications wer e insuffic ient to establish his guilt. Rodrigue z is incorre ct.

“ Th is Court re ve rs e s a judg me nt f or ins uf fi c ie nc y of the e vid e nc e on ly

if [the ] jud g me nt i s not supported by

substantial and competent evidenc e upon the record as a whole.” United States v. Ba rn e tt , 3 9 8 F. 3 d

5 1 6 , 5 2 1 -2 2 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Un i ted States v. Stone , 748 F.2d 361, 363 (6th Cir.1984)) (inter

nal quotation marks o m i t t ed ). “Howeve r, whe n the def endant moves f

or jud g me n to f

a c qu i t t a l a tth e c l o s e o f th e g o v e r

n m e n t ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f

, an d d e f e n s e e v i d e n c e is there afte r pre sented but the de fenda nt fails to rene w t he mot ion at the close of all of the e vidence , h e w ai v es o b

j ec t i o nt o th e d en i al o f hi s ea rl i er m o t i o n , ab s en t a sh o wi n g o f am an i fe s tm i s ca rr i age of justice.” United States v. Price , 1 34 F .3 d 3 40 , 3 50 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) ; see also United States v. Roberge , 565 F.3d 1 005, 1008 (6th Cir. 2009). “A misca rriag e of justice e x ists only if the re cord is devoid of evidenc e pointing to guilt.” Id. Her e, the Russell’s Market robber y victim, Reed, identified Rodrigue z as one of t he two men that e nte re d h is s tor e and ro bb e d h im at gun po in t. Th e L a s A me ri c a s Mu sic a s r ob be ry vic tim , Fr ag osa, testified that two men wear ing ski masks robbed he r at gunpoint, and Her nandez testifiedUnited States v. Rodriguez

No. 086136

- 10 - that he and Rodriguez committed the robbery toge ther. Finally , Rodrigue z’s finge rprints matche d fing erpr ints li fted fr om the L as Amer icas Musica s crime sc ene. Ba sed on the described evidence , Rodrigue z has not shown a manife st miscarriag e of justice. III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the a

bove re asons, we AF F IRM Rodrigue z’s conviction.