IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50512

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS BELLOC-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-436-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Belloc-Hernandez was convicted after a jury trial of being 

found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He 

argues that the district court abused its discretion when it permitted 

the Government to introduce into evidence documents from BellocHernandez’s alien file (“A-file”), which showed that Belloc-Hernandez lacked 

documentation to be present in this country. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
No. 15-50512

2

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Ned, 637 F.3d 562, 569 (5th Cir. 2011). Federal 

Rule of Evidence 803(6) creates an exception to the hearsay rule for a record 

kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, if, among other 

things, it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record, 

“as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.” FED.

R. EVID. 803(6); see also United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 792 (5th Cir. 

2008). 

Belloc-Hernandez argues that the Government’s witness, Border Patrol 

Agent Petersen, was not the custodian of his A-file and was not an “other 

qualified witness.” We have held that a qualified witness for purpose of Rule 

803(6) is one who can explain the system of record keeping and vouch that the 

requirements of the Rule 803(6) are met; such a witness need not have personal 

knowledge of the record keeping practice or the circumstances under which the 

objected to records were kept. United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345, 356 (5th Cir. 

1995); see also United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Agent Petersen described the procedure for storing A-files at the El Paso 

facility and the authentication procedure for files that are reproduced. She 

also testified that Belloc-Hernandez’s file had been made and preserved in the 

regular course of the agency’s business and in accord with the agency’s 

procedures. Although Petersen could not give the names of individuals at the 

El Paso facility who were “custodians” of Belloc-Hernandez’s file while it was 

there, she nevertheless adequately explained the agency’s record keeping 

system. See Box, 50 F.3d at 356. Thus, Belloc-Hernandez fails to show that 

the district court abused its discretion when it admitted documents from his 

A-file into evidence under Rule 803(6). See Box, 50 F.3d at 356; Iredia, 866 

F.2d at 120.

 Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
No. 15-50512

3

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2016