The Honor able Da vid D. Dowd, United States District Judge f or t h e No rt h ern D istrict of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0269n.06 No. 07-6021 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, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. STEV EN P AU L F AST , Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PEA L F RO M THE U NI TED STATES DIST RI CT CO UR T F OR THE EA S TE RN D IS TR IC T O F K EN TU CKY

Before: G IBBO NS, GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and DOWD, District Judge. * JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. Def endant- appellant Stephen Fa st challeng es the suffic iency

of evide nce suppor

ting his convic tion f

or car rying a firea

rm during a drugtraff

icking crime unde r 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)( 1). F ast also cha lleng es the a dmiss i o n o f ce rt ain phy sical and opinion evidence
. For the following rea sons, we af firm Fa st’s conviction. I. On J une 12, 2006, member s of the Ke n t u ck y S t at e Police Dr ug Task F orce perf

ormed a n und e r c o v e r

dr u g - b u y o p e r a ti o nta

r g e ti n g F a s t i nK

n o tt Co u n ty , K e n tu c ky . B a s e d o nin formation ob ta ine d f ro m an in fo rm ant, un de rc ov e r De te c tiv e Rus se ll Dis hn e r ar ra ng e d to buy dr

ug s f ro m F a stNo. 07-6021

Un ite d S tat es v . F as t

2 in a g as station parking lot. Fa st trave led from his home i n Ang ola, I ndiana, to the Knott C ounty g as station and parke d his pickup truck in the station’s lot. Detec tive Dishner, we aring an audio rec ording device and visually monitored by two other detec tives, approa ched the vehicle a nd confirme d that Fa st was the drive r. F ast then hande d Dishner a piec e of pa

per that alleg edly

indicated the pr ice of

methodone and oxy contin pills and a debt that a conf idential witness owed to him. The pair ne g otiated the sale of the na rcotics. F ast then aske d Dishner to g et into the truck, pulled a white bagout of the ce nter c onsole of the truc k, and showe d Dishner the c ontents of the bagwhich included pill bo t t l es and loose me thadone pills. Dishner walked around to the passeng er side of the vehicle, g ave the other detec tives a prea rra nged s igna l that he had se en the na

rcotics, a nd sat in the passenge r seat. Dishner then c ounted out the money that he and F ast had a g ree d upon. Police o f f ic e r s th e r e a f

te r ar r iv e d o nth e s c e n e an d

ar r e s te d F a s t. T h e o f

f ic e r s r e c o v ere d eleve n ox y codone pills and a piece of pape r with hand-written notations on the floorboard, and a bag with two ox y codone pill bottles and loose Metha done wa fer pills i n the cente r console. The off icer s also rec overe d a loade d .22 caliber revolve r di rec tly underne ath t he bag in the t ruck’ s cente r console. On Novembe r 2, 2006, F ast was indicted a nd charged wi t h traff

icking in ox y contin and methadone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a )(1) , car rying a firea rm during and in re lation to a drug traff icking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1) , trave ling in interstate commerc e for purposes of dr ugtr a ff ic kin g in v iol a tio n o f 18 U. S.C. § 195 2( a )( 3) , an d two re late d for fe iture c ounts . A t tr ia l, F a st t e sti fi e d a

nd a dmi tte d th a t he ha d inte nd e d to ille g a lly se ll his w if e ’s pr e sc ri pti on

dr ug s. He a lso
a dmi tte d th a t he ha d th e g un wh ic h h a d be e n co nf

isc a te d fr om his tr

uc k’ s ce nte r co ns ole wi th h imNo. 07-6021

Un ite d S tat es v . F as t

3 fo r h is p ro te c tio n. Th e jur y c on vic te d F a st o n a ll thr e e su bs tanti ve c ounts
. On July 31 , 2 00 7, F a st w a s se nte nc e d to a tot a l of 11 1 mo nth s o f imp ri so nme nt. He tim e ly appea led. II. Fa st first c h a ll e n g e s th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e s u

p p o rti n g h is c o n v ic ti o nf

o r c ar r y ing a fire arm duringa drugtraff icking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). Unde r the fa miliar standard set forth in J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), we revie w a suff iciency of the e vidence challeng e to deter

mine, viewing the trial testimony and exhibits in the light most favor able to the pr os e c uti on , w he the r a

ny ratio na l tr ie r o f fa c t cou ld have fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me bey ond a re asonable doubt. United States v. Kuehne , 547 F.3d 667, 696 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Section 924(c) (1) pr ovides that “a ny person who, dur ing a

nd in relation to an y crime of violence or

drugtraff icking crime .
. . uses or car ries a firea

rm, shall, in addition to the punishm ent provided for such crime . . . be sente nced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 y ear s . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A). I n order to establish the connection betwee n the ca rry ing a nd the cr iminal activity , “‘the firea

rm must have some purpose or ef fec t with respe ct t o the drug traffickingcrime; its presenc e or involvement cannot be the result of acc ident or coincidenc e.’” Un ite d S tates v . W all s , 2 9 3 F. 3 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Smith v. United States , 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993)) . “The
wea pon must at least fac ilitate or have the pot ential of fac ilitating the drugtraff icking offe nse.” Id. I t is clear that Fast “ car

ried” the fire arm within the mea ning of § 924(c) (1) by

kee p i n g the revolve r in the console of his ve hicle. Muscare llo v. United States , 524 U.S. 125, 126–27 (1998). There is a lso e vidence sufficie nt to lead a rational trier of fac t to conclude that the pre sence of theNo. 07-6021

Un ite d S tat es v . F as t

4 firea rm fac ilit ated or had the potential to fa cilitate the drugtraff icking offe nse. The f

irea rm was discovere d direc tly

beneath the bag of narcotics that F ast admitted he attempted to sell to Detective Di sh ne r. Th e fi re arm

wa s lo a de d, wi thi n re a c h of F a st d ur ingthe e nti re dr

ugtr ans a c tio n, and

F a st admitted at trial t hat he car ried the firea

rm for his own protection. This evidence would fully support
a rational juror’s finding that Fa st carr ied the we apon duringand in re lat i o n t o a d ru g traff icking crime. Fa st attempts to arg ue that ther e is no evidence that he “used” the fire arm duringthe drug traff icking offe nse. This argument, of cour se, is inapposite as Fast was charg ed and c onvicted under the “c arr y ” prongof § 924(c )(1)
. III
. Fa st also challeng es the a dmission of three piece s of evidenc e at trial. F irst, Fast a rg ues that the district court e rre d in admitting into evidence the piece of pape r alleg edly containing handwr itten notations reg ardingthe drugtransac tion that Fast showed to De te c ti v e D is hner dur ing the underc over drugbuy . Second, F ast contends that the distr i ct co u rt err ed in admitting opinion evidenc e in the fo rm of po lic e of fi c e r t e sti mony

re g ard ingthe so ur c e and me anin g of tho se ha nd wr itt e n n otatio ns . Finally , Fa st challeng es the a dmission of poli ce of fice r t estimony descr ibing the office r’s pre vious experience with drug traff icking and his views on wh et h er there is a hig h likelihood that drug tr a ff ic kin g inv olv e s th e us e of fi re arm s. We need not conside r F ast’s var ious evidentiary challeng es in detail bec au se ea ch of the purported error s was ha

rmless. Un ite d S

tates v . B ald

win , 418 F.3d 575, 581 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“Eve n wher e a district c ourt err oneously admits evidence , we will not reve rse the def endant’ s convictionNo. 07-6021

Un ite d S tat es v . F as t

5 if the error is deeme d harmless.” ). “An error is harmless ‘when it appea rs bey ond a re asonable doubt that the er ror c omplained of did not contribute to the ve rdict obtained.’ ” Id
. at 5 8 2 (q u o t i n g Mi tc he ll

v . E sp ar za , 5 4 0 U
. S. 1 2 , 1 7

– 1 8 ( 2 0 0 3 ) )
. H e r e , F a s t to o k th e s ta n d a t tr ia l an d a dmi tt ed that he trave led ac ross state lines and met Detec tive Dishner with the intent of selling illega l na rcotics. He also admitted that he c arr i ed a fi re arm with him in his truck for his protec tion. The fire arm wa s loc a te d d ir e c tly un de rn e a th the sta sh of ill e g a l nar c oti c s in the ve hic le ’s c e nte r c on so le and wi thi n
rea ch of Fa st dur ing the entire drug transac tion. This e vidence is overwhe lming, and suppor ts Fast’s conviction on all three counts. We theref ore c onclude that the p u rp o rt ed evidentiar y err ors
c ha lle ng e d b y

F a st w e re ha

rm le ss. I V. For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm Fa st’s conviction.