### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50829 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHARLES EDWARD CURRY, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09-CR-211-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Edward Curry was convicted of four counts of wire fraud and four counts of aggravated identity theft and w a s sentenced to serve 126 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this direct appeal, Curry first argues that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were infringed when

one of the victims of his offenses was not called to testify at trial and by certain testimony of that victim’s sister. These arguments, which are reviewed for plain

error only due to his failure to present them to the district court, are unavailing. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 5 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50829 Document: 00511685110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2011No. 10-50829

See United States v. Acosta , 475 F.3d 6 7 7 , 6 8 0

- 81 (5th Cir. 2007). Curry’s argument with respect to the victim is misplaced because “there is no constitutional right to confront the victim of a crime.” See United States v. Santos , 589 F.3d 7 5 9 , 763 n.2 (5th Cir. 2009). His challenge to certain attestations fails because he has not shown that the disputed testimony is best classed as a testimonial statement. Rather, this attestation concerns a statement that may fairly be considered “a casual remark to an acquaintance,” and there is no indication that it was meant to “bear testimony” against Curry. See Ramirez v. Dretke , 398 F.3d 691, 695 n.3 (20 05). Next, Curry argues that the evidence does not support his conviction on the charges involving the non-testifying victim because there was no evidence to show that this victim did not authorize Curry to take the actions underlying the disputed charges. Although there was no direct testimony concerning this issue, the evidence brought forth at tri al, when viewed in support of the judgment, suffices to make th e required showing, and the jury’s verdict is supported by a reasonable construction of the trial evidence. See United States

v. Stephens , 571 F.3d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 2009); Unite d S tates v. Guerra-Marez , 928 F.2d 655, 674 (5th Cir. 1991 ). Finally, Curry relies upon Federal Ru l e s o f Evidence 403 and 404(b) to argue that reversible error resulted from the admission of evidence pertaining to his prior crimes. Our review of the record refutes this argument and shows

no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court’s ruling. The evidence of Curry’s prior convictions was relevant, and any prejudicial effect was minimized by the district court’ s i n structions to the jury. See United States v. Pompa , 434 F.3d 800, 805 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Taylor , 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th Cir. 2000). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-50829 Document: 00511685110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2011