IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 was 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. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

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

See United States v. Acosta, 475 F.3d 677, 680-81 (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 759, 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 (2005).

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 trial, when viewed in support of the

judgment, suffices to make the 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); United States v. Guerra-Marez,

928 F.2d 655, 674 (5th Cir. 1991).

Finally, Curry relies upon Federal Rules of 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 instructions 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