UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

THURSTON SANDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:09-cr-00251-BEL-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2011 Decided: October 27, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Staff 

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, 

United States Attorney, Justin S. Herring, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thurston Sanders appeals his convictions for armed 

bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. On 

appeal, he challenges the introduction of bait money registers, 

asserting that admission of these documents violated the 

Confrontation Clause. He also contends that an out-of-court 

identification was erroneously admitted at trial. We affirm.

Sanders first asserts that bait money registers are 

testimonial under the Sixth Amendment, as explained by 

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because they record 

past facts and are required by law enforcement to assist in the 

investigation and prosecution of bank robberies. Thus, Sanders 

contends that the admissibility of the registers is governed by 

the Confrontation Clause, and they are inadmissible absent 

witness unavailability and a prior opportunity for 

cross-examination. Id. at 68. We decline to address this 

issue, as we find that any error by the district court was 

harmless.

Constitutional trial errors are harmless only if the 

reviewing court is “able to declare a belief that [the error] 

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 

386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). When the error involves wrongly 

admitted evidence, “the impact of the error can be evaluated in 

light of the other evidence which was properly admitted.” 
3

United States v. Blevins, 960 F.2d 1252, 1262 (4th Cir. 1992). 

To determine whether the admission of the registers was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt, we review the entire trial record and 

determine whether “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the jury would have returned [a guilty] verdict[]” even if the 

evidence had not been introduced. Id. at 1263. This 

determination requires a quantitative assessment of the impact 

of the error measured against the other evidence presented and a 

qualitative assessment of the proof as to whether the 

erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative. Id. at 1262; 

Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 (1973).

We conclude that any error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. The bait bill register was introduced to 

prove that the money found in Sanders’ hotel room came from the 

bank. There was overwhelming other evidence that the money in 

Sanders’ room was from the robbery. Specifically, the GPS 

tracker packs taken with the money from the bank were found with 

the money in the hotel room. Further, the police also found 

firearms (including one used in the robbery) and costume items 

worn by the robber in Sanders’ hotel room. In addition, the 

robber was seen leaving the bank and heading toward the hotel, 

where Sanders was found alone in a room containing the abovedescribed evidence of the robbery.
4

In his reply brief, Sanders contends that the bait 

money registers might reasonably have contributed to his 

convictions, especially given that the Government highlighted 

the registers in closing argument. Nonetheless, we find that 

there is no reasonable probability that the evidence complained 

of contributed to the convictions. The GPS trackers taken from 

the bank were found with the money in the hotel room, the money 

was hidden in the ceiling, the amount of the money stolen was 

very similar to the amount recovered, and Sanders was tracked 

from the bank to the hotel room. Accordingly, we easily 

conclude (and, we emphasize, without determining whether there 

was error at all) that any Confrontation Clause error was 

harmless. 

Regarding Sanders’ identification claim, we have 

reviewed the briefs and record in the case, and we find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. (See J.A. at 190-92). Based on the 

foregoing, we affirm Sanders’ convictions. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED