Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this op in io n s hould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60040

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee , v. W IL L IA M C . B R E L A N D , J R ., D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t
.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U S D C N o . 1 :08 -C R -8 5 -1

B ef ore C L E M E N T , P R A D O , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. PE R CURIAM * D efen da n tW i l l i am C
. B rel an d, Jr. app eal s f ro m a fina lj u dg m en tof convic t i on en t ered by t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct
o f M i s s i s s i ppi f

o r m ak i ng a fal s e c l ai m t o t he Fe de r alEm e r ge nc y M ana ge m e nt A genc y f

orH urr i c ane K at r i na di sa st errel i ef be nef i t s und er18 U
. S. C
. §§ 287 and 2, a i di ng anda be t t i ng ano t he ri n m ak i ng a fal s e c l ai m t o FEM A f o rH ur r i c ane K atr i n a dis asterrel i ef ben ef i t s, m ak i n g fal se s t atem en t s t o F E M Ai n vi ol ati on of 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 1001 a n d 2, theftof G overnm en tf

u n ds i n excess of

$1, 000 un der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

2 18 U
. S. C
. § 641, an d thr ee count s of m ai lf r aud i n vi ol at i on of

18 U
. S. C
. §§ 1341
an d 2. B rel an d cha l l en ges hi s c on vi ct i on s on t h e groun ds t h at ( 1) t h e di st ri ct court com m it t ed reve rs ib le e rr o r b yp e rm ittin gth e G o v e rn m e n t’ s w itn e ss , D ebra H e n r y , t o t e s t if

y a s a la yw it n e s s r a t h e rth a n a s a n e x p e r tw it n e s s , (2 ) B r e la n d ’s Si xt h Am e ndm e ntr i ghto f c o nf r o nt at i o n wa s vi o l at e d when t he G o ve r nm e nt fa il e dto c a lla s a w it n e s s th e F E M Ar e p r e s e n t a t iv e w h o t o o k B r e la n d ’s
a p p l i ca ti on ov er th e p h on e, a n d( 3 ) th e ev i d en ce w a s fa ctu a l l y in su ffi ci en t t o sup port t h e convi ct i on s. For t h e reasons given bel ow , w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct
cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. I. In D ecem ber of

200 4, B rel an d an d h i s gi rl f ri en d, A m ber D u n gan , m oved f r o m A ri zona t o t he M i s s i s s i ppiG ul f Coa s ta r e a. Bet w e e n t hatda t e a nd t he l an dfal lof

H u rri can e K atr i n a on A u gu st2 9, 200 5, B rel an d an d D u n gan m oved f rom pl ace t o pla ce . F or s om e t i m e peri od d u ri n g t h ese m on t h s— t h e du rat i on of w h i ch w as di spu t ed at t ri al

— B rel an d an d D u n gan st ayed at t h e hom e ow n ed b y B relan d ’ s fa th er a t 40 9 6 O l ga D rive , L ot T , P a ss C h ri sti a n , M i ssissi p p i
. In S eptem ber of

200 5, B rel an d f

i l ed an app l i cat i on w i t h F E M Af or di sast er r el i ef
as si st ance f

ordam ages s ust ai ned t o t he hom e he c l ai m ed as hi s r es i denc e— 4096 O l ga D rive. B rel an d su b m itt ed h i s app l i cat i on i n f orm ati on by tel eph on e t o a F E M Aa g e n t, a n dh is in fo r m a tio n w a s co m p ile d i n a file . A s a re s u lt o f h is ap pl i cat i on , F E M Aaw arded B rel an d $8 , 907
. 46 i n di sast er r el i ef assi st an ce: $2 , 00 0 f

o re xp e di t e d ho us i ng as s i s t anc e , $ 2, 35 8 f o rr e nt ala ssi st anc e , a nd $4, 549
. 46 forpersona lproperty l o ss . B rel an d als o rec eived a F E M At ravel tr a ile r . Sho r t l y t he r e af

t e r , Br e l and ’ s fat he r m ad e a c o m pl ai nt t o FE M A al l e gi ng t hatB r el and had f

r audul ent l y cl a i m ed to be l ivi ng att he 4096 O l ga D r ive resi den ce att h e t i m e of H u rri can e K atr i n a. A ccor di n g t o B rel an d’ s father, B r el and had st ayed att he r es i denc e f ora s hor t per i od o f

t i m e, butdi d notl ive Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

3 att he addr es s i m m edi at el y pr i ort o o rduri ng t he t i m e o f H urr i c ane K at r i na. F ol l ow i n g an i n vest i gati on , B rel an d an d co- D efen da n tA m ber D u n gan , w ere cha rged i n an el even - coun ti n di ct m en tf or c ri m es r el ati n gto t h e al l eged fr a u d u le n t r e c e ip t o f F E M Ad is a s te rre lie f b e n e fits

. In O ct ober of 200 8, B rel an d and D u n gan w en t t o t ri al
. T h e parti es c ont es t ed w het herB r el and l ived at t he 4096 O l ga D r ive addre ss pr i ort o a nd at t h e t i m e of

H u rri can e K atr i n a, an d w h eth e r th i s add ress w as his “ pri m ary r e s i de nc e ” fo rt he pur po s e of F EM A di s as t e rr e l i e f e l i gibi l i t y. The G o ve r nm e nt
c al l ed as i t s f

i r stw i t nes s D ebr a H enr y, a FE M A pro gr am spe c i al i st w i t h t w elve year s of

ex per i enc e, t o t es t i f y abo utt he pol i c i es and pr oc edur es fo l l ow ed by FE M A a tt h e t i m e o f Br e l a n d ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n . Af t e ra n u m b e ro f

q u e s t i o ns c onc er ni ng H enr y’ s year s of ex per i enc e a nd her spe c i al i ze d t r ai ni ng, H enr y w as asked t o expl ai n t h e l egal basi s f or FE M A
. A tt h i s poi n t , B rel an d’ s c ou n sel obj ec t ed t hatH enr y w as pr ovi di ng expe r tt es t i m ony w i t hi n t he s c ope of Feder al Rul e o f Evi de nc e 7 02 , b utt he c o ur tdi d n ot ru l e on t hi s o bj e c t i o n a nd t he obj e c t i o n w as ne ve r r e - ur ge d. H e nr y pr o c e e de d t o t e s t i f y ab o ut he r r ol e as a r e gi s t r at i o n i nt ak e s pe c i al i s ta n d t he pr o c e s s FEM A us e d t o t ak e a ppl i c at i o ns f or H u rri can e K atr i n a rel i ef

. S h e a l so expl ai n ed that t o rec eive F E M Aben ef i t s, ap pl i c ant s w e r e r e qui r e d t o pr o ve , a m o ng o t he rfac t s , t hatt he y l ive d i n t he d a m a g e dh o m e a t t h e tim e o f th e d is a s te r . Af t e rf u r t h e rq u e s t i o n i n ga b o u tF EM A’ s p r o c e d u r e s , t h e Go v e r nm e nt
m ov edto ad m it G ov ern m e n t E x h ib it 2 0 , B r e la n d ’ s F E M Aa p p lic a tio n p a c k et i n to
ev i d en ce u n d er th e b u sine ss reco rd s ex cep ti on to th e h ea rsa y ru l e p u rsu a n t t o F ederal R u l e of E vi den ce 803 ( 6)
. B rel an d’ s c ou n selobj ect ed that i t s adm i ssi on w o ul d d e ny Bre l andt he r i ghtt o c o nf r o nthi s a c c us e rb e c aus e t he rec o r ds
c o n t a i n e dh e a r s a y , a n d he w o u l dn o tb e a b l e t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e F EM A
r epr es ent at ive w ho rec or ded B r el and’ s i nf or m at i on i n t he f

i l e. Th e o bj ec t i on w as o v e r r u le d , a n dth e a p p lic a tio n w a s a d m itt e da s a b u s in e s s re c o r d
. Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

4 F ol l ow i n g t h e adm i ssi on of B rel an d’ s app l i cat i on pa cket, H en ry t est i f i ed abou tt h e process F E M Aused t o obtai n t h e i n f orm ati on i n a n app l i can t ’ s f i l e. S h e exp l ai n ed t h at w h en F E M A receives a K atr i n a di sast er rel i ef ap p li ca t i on over t h e ph on e, t h e app l i can ti s as k e d a ser i es of qu est i on s f

rom a desi gn ated
sc r i pt , and eac h appli ca n t is aske d t he s am e q ues t i ons . H enr y t es t i f i ed t hat B r el and’ s f

i l e r ef l ec t ed t hathe pro vi ded 4096 O l ga D r ive as hi s addre ss , and t hat F E M Ala te rid e n tifie dth is a d d r e s s a s b e in gB r e l a n d ’ s “p r im a r yre s id e n c e .” H en ry t est i f

i ed that t h e C ode of

F ederalR egu l ati on s d ef i n ed pri m ary resi den ce as w h ere a person “ resi des f or th e m aj ori t y of

t h e year, ” an d that a show i n g of “p ri m ary resi den ce” w as a m an da t ory cr i t eri on f or r eceivi n g F E M Adi sast er reli ef a ssistan ce. H en ryfu rth er testi fi ed th a t th e d efi n i ti on w a s n ot p rov i d ed to ap pl i c ant s upo n r e gi s t r at i o n, b utt hate l i gibi l i t y r e q u ir e m e n t s we r e s e to uti n t he
c o pyo f t he “ H e l p Af

t e ra D i sast er” G ui de w hi c h e ac h a ppl i c antr e c e ive d. The G u id e w a s a d m itt e da s G o v e r n m e n t E x h ib it F o u r . H en ry t h ereaf

t er tes t i f

i ed regardi n g t h e def i n i t i on of

“ pri m ary resi den ce” i n t h e con te x t o f r eceivi n g F E M Adi sast er r el i ef ben ef i t s, i n cl u di n g w h i ch
r e p r e s e n ta tio n s m a d e d u r in gB r e la n d ’ s a p p lic a tio n in ta k e w o u ldtr ig g e rh is el i gibi l i t y f

or vari ou s f

orm s of assi st an ce. Sh e al so expl ai n ed the si gn i f i can ce of cert ai n fact ors cri t i c alt o F E M A ’ s det erm i n ati on of el i gibi l i t y f

or ass i st an ce, such
a s th e n u m b e ro f p e o p le r e s id in gi n t h e h o m e . O n c r o s s -e x a m in a t io n , B r e la n d ’s
coun selbroug h tfor t h furt h er tes t i m on y f rom H en ry on the t opi c of the d ef i n i t i on o f “pri m ary resi den ce, ” el i ci t i n g confl i ct i n g defi n i t i on s and an adm i ssi on t hatthe d eterm i n a ti on w a s n ot “black an dw h i te. ” B r e la n d ’ s cou n sel did n ot ob j ect to
a n y o f H e n r y ’ s te s tim o n yre g a r d in g“p r im a r yre s id e n c e ” o n th e g r o u n dth a t it
e xc e e de d t he sc o pe of pr o pe rl ayw i t ne s s t e s t i m o ny, a nd h e di d no tm o ve t o s t r i ke he rr e s po ns e s o n t hi s s ubj e c to n c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n. F o llo w in gH e n r y ’ s te s tim o n y , th e G o v e r n m e n t c a lle dJ e s s i c a D u v a l, A m a n d a M cM a h a n , W i l l i a m B r e l a n dS r. , an dF B I ag en t Ja m es G ru n w a l d to Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

5 t es t i f y abo utB r el and’ s r es i denc e pr i ort o H urricane K at r i na. A l lt es t i f i ed t hat Bre l anda nd Dunga n di d no tl ive a t4 09 6 O l gaD r ive c o nt i nuo us l y t hr o ugh o ut 200 5. Th e D efen se c al l ed B rel an d’ s un cl e, F ran k P att on , an d B rel an d’ s s i st er, A ngel a B r el and, t o t es t i f y o n hi s behal f

. Bot h t es t i f i ed t hatB r elan d s t ayed at 4 096 O l ga D rive at vari ou s poi n t s du ri n g 200 5, bu tt h at B rel an d als o st ayed
w i t h var i ous ot her peo pl e duri ng t hatt i m e pe r i od. An gel a B r el and t es t i f i ed t hat B rel an d an d D u n gan h ad som e persona lproperty att h e res i den ce. A tt h e cl ose of t he t hre e- day t r i al , B r el and w as c onvi c t ed o n al lc harge s. I n January o f 2009, h e w as sentenced to t w en t y- f ou r m on t h s i n pri son and t h ree years of sup ervi sed
r e l e as e . H e a nd Dunga n wer e o r de r e d t o pay$29 , 61 9. 66 j o i nt l y i n r e s t i t ut i o n, and B r el and w as or der ed t o paya s pec i alas se ss m entof $700. I I . A
. Stan d ardof

R evi ew B re la n da rg u e s th a t th e d istr ict co u rt e rr e din p e rm ittin gH e n ryto te stify as t o t h e m ean i n g of t h e t erm “ pri m ary resi den ce” w h en she h ad not been of fered
o rq u a li fi e da s a n e x p e r t . B e fo r e p r o c e e d in gto th e m e r it s o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s cl ai m , w e m u st first d e t erm i n e t h e proper st an da rd of revi ew . B ot h parti es s ugg e s t e d i n br i e f

i ng t hat“ ab us e of

di s c r e t i o n” i s t he a ppr o pr i at e s t and ar d, b ut
o urc o ur t“ m us tc o ns i de rt he s t and ar d suasponte be c aus e ‘ no pa r t y has t he p ow er to con trol ou r stan d a rd of rev i ew . ’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 505 F. 3d 389, 391 n. 1 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. V on t st een , 950 F. 2d 1086, 1091 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) )
. W h e r e e r r o ri s p r o p e r l yp r e s e r v e db ya t i me l yo b j e c t i o n , we
r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia r yr u lin g s fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. G riffin , 3 24 F. 3d330 , 347 ( 5t h C i r . 2 00 3)
. Butw he r e “ t he c o m pl ai ni ng p a rty fail ed to ob j ect at tri a l , w e rev i ew on l y for p l a i n erro r. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. T h ompson , 4 5 4 F .3 d4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). The r e c o r dd o e s n o ts u p p o r tBr e l a n d ’ s a r g u m e n tt h a th e o b j e c t e dt o t he t e s t i m o ny he no w c hal l e nge s o n t he b asi s o f i m pr o pe re xp e r tt e s t i m o ny. The Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

6 G overnm en tf

i rsti n t rodu ced t h e su bj ectof “ pri m ary resi den ce” by ask i n g H en ry w h eth er th e d efi n i ti on of “prim a ryresid e n ce” w a s give n to F E M Aap p l i ca n ts dur i ng t he t e l e pho ne i nt ak e , a nd H e nr y r e s po nde d t hati tw as no tg ive n t o t he ap pl i can t s. Th e G overnm en tt h en asked H en ry “W h at i s FE M A ’ s def i n i t i on of pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e ? ” Br e l and ’ s c o uns e lo bj ect ed, a r gui ng t hat“ [i] f [t he G o v e r n m e n t] d id n ’ t g iv e [th e d e fin itio n ] to d e fe n d a n ts , w h a t d iffe r e n c e w o u ld it
m ak e w h at F E M A ’ s defi n i t i on i s?” B rel an d now contend s t h at H en ry’ s r espon se an d s u bsequ en t t est i m on y shou l d hav e been excl u ded as i m pr o p e r e xp ert
w i t nes s t es t i m ony. B r el and’ s c ounse lobj ec t ed t o t he r el evanc e o f t he t es t i m ony, no ti t s c har ac t e r i z at i o n a s i m pe r m i s s ibl e e xp e r tt e s t i m o ny. Ther e f o r e , “ o ur rev i ew i s on l y for p l a i n erro r. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares, 40 2 F .3 d51 1 , 52 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B r e la n d ’ s co u n s e l d idm a k e a n o b je c tio n b a s e do n im p e r m is s ib le
e xp e r tt e s t i m o ny m uc h e ar l i er i n H e nr y’ s t e s t i m o ny, w he n t he g o ve r nm e nt
as ked “W hati s t he l egalbas i s f orFE M A ? , ” butB r el and does notc hal l enge H e n r y ’ s r e s p o n s e to th is q u e s tio n . M o r e o v e r , th e co u r t d idn o t r u le o n th is
o b je c tio n , b u t s ta te dth a t “ I d o n ’ t k n o w w h e r e s h e ’ s g o in gw ith it. L e t’s s e e .” T h is s t a t e m e n t i n d ic a t e dth a tth e c o u r tn e e d e dto h e a rm o r e o f H e n r y ’s t e s t i m o ny be f

o r e r ul i ng o n whet he rt he o bj e c t i o n c o ul d b e s us t ai ne d, b ut Bre l and ’ s cou n seldi d no tr e as s e r thi s o bj e c t i o n when H e nr y t e s t i f i e d a bo ut F E M A ’ s d e fin itio n o f “p r im a r y r e s id e n c e .” In fa c t, B r e la n d ’ s co u n s e l n e v e ra g a in
r ai se d a Ru l e 7 02 o bj ec t i on t hro ughoutt he r em ai nderof hert es t i m ony. Iti s w ell -sett l ed th a t a p a rty m u st m a k e a con tem p ora n eo u s ob j ection to th e d is p u te dte s tim o n y , u n le s s th e co u r t g r a n ts a co n tin u in go b je c tio n . C. P. Int ere st s, In c. v. C al. Pools, I n c. , 2 3 8 F .3d 6 9 0 , 6 9 6 -9 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); B ai ley v . S
. Pac. Tran sp. Co. , 6 1 3 F .2 d1 3 8 5 , 1 3 8 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) (p e rcu r ia m ); seeUn i t ed S t ate s v . S a n chez- Hernan d ez , 507 F
. 3d 826 , 831 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (f i n di n g error preserved w h ere t h e t ri al court gran t ed d efen se c ou n sela “ conti n u i n g obj ect i on t o [t h e] l i n e of

qu est i on s” )
. N on e w as gran t ed h ere, so w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

7 B
. A n a lys is B rel an d argu es that t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed by( 1) al l ow i n g D ebra H en ry to testi fy as a l a y w i tn ess w h en “[h e r ] d e s c r i p ti on s of he r j ob du ti es su p p ort a fin d in gth a t s h e w a s a n e x p e r t in th e fie ldo f F E M Ad is a s te rre lie f a s s is ta n c e ,”
a n d( 2 ) a d m i tti n g H en ry ’ s testi m on y reg a rd i n g t h e t erm “prim a ryreside n ce”— a r equi r em entf

orF E M Ad i sast err el i ef def i ned i n t he C ode of Feder al R egu l ati on s— on t h e groun d that such tes t i m on y exceeds t h e sc ope of l ay wi t ne ss te s tim o n yp e r m is s ib le u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 1
. R u l e 7 0 1 l i m i t s l ay w i t n ess t est i m on y t o “ t h ose opi n i on s ori n ferences w h i ch are ( a) rati on al l y based on the p ercept i on of t h e w i t n ess, (b) hel pfult o a c le a ru n d e r s ta n d in go f th e w itn e s s ’te s tim o n yo rth e d e te r m in a tio n o f a fa c t in i ss ue, and (c ) notbas ed o n sc i ent i f i c , t ec hni c al , orot hers pec i al i ze d know l edge
w ith in th e s c o p e o f R u le 7 0 2 .” T h e r e fo r e , “ any pa r tof a w i t nes s’ s opi ni on t hat
r es t s on s c i ent i f

i c , t ec h n i cal , ors pec i al i ze d know l edge m ustbe det er m i ned by
r e fe r e n c e to R u le 7 0 2 , n o t R u le 7 0 1 .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Y an ez S osa , 513 F. 3d 194, 200 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. O u r c ou rtha s f u rt h er c l ari f

i ed that t h e “ di st i n ct i on betw een l ay an d exp ertw i t n ess t est i m on y i s t h at l ay test i m on y ‘ resul t s f rom a process of reasoni n g fam i l i ar i n everyda y l i fe, ’w h i l e expert t est i m on y ‘ resul t s f rom a p roce ss of rea son i n g w h i ch can be m a stere don l y b y sp eciali sts i n the f i eld.’” I d. (q u o tin gF e d . R . E v id . 7 0 1 , a d v is o r yco m m itt e e ’ s n o te to 2 0 0 0 a m e n d m e n ts ). B r e la n dfir s t a r g u e s t h a t H e n r yte s tifie da s “a n e x p e r t a n ds p e c ia lis t in herf i el d” w i t houtbe i ng of fer ed as an ex per tr at hert han as al ay w i t nes s, as dem on st rat ed byH en ry’ s i n t rodu ct ory t est im o n y h i gh l i gh t i n g h er experi en ce a n dtr a in in g , h e rca r e e ra s a p r o g r a m s p e c ia lis t, a n dh e re x te n s iv e cr e d e n tia ls i n v ar i o us a s pe c t s o f FEM A pr o c e dur alw o r k. H e nr y’ s q ual i f i cat i o ns ha ve no beari n g on t h e adm i ssibi l i t y of her t est i m on y as a l ay w i t n ess, as R u l e 701 “ does not di st i ngui sh bet w ee n expe r tand l ay w i t n ess es , butra t he rb e t w e e n e xp e r ta nd l ay t e s t i m o ny .” F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 1 a d v is o r yc o m m it t e e ’s n o t e . H e n r y ’s Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

Had Brelan d’s counsel ma de prope robjection s to the dispute d testi monyan d be en 1 overruled, the ruling

woul d then be treated a s “the l aw of the case”—allow in g Br eland to repe at an d reb ut the obj ection ab let es ti mo nywhile still pres ervingerror . Un ited Statesv . Ma rs hal l , 7 6 2F .2 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 5). No suc h rul in g was ob tained, so the further develop ment of anyimpermissible expert te stimonyoncro ss-exa minationinvited error into the procee ding . “[W]here theinjectionof allegedlyinadmissib le evidence is attributab le to the action of the defen se,” as it was in this case, “its introduction does not constitutereversib le 8 i n trod u ctorystatem en ts reg a rd i n g h er ex p erien ce a n dtrainin g w ere u sed to
e s t ab l i s h he rpe r s o nalkno w l e dg e o f t he F E M A po l i c i e s a nd p r o c e dur e s a bo ut
w hi c h s he l at e r t e s t i f i e d, andpe r s o nalkno w l e dg e i s a m and at o r y unde r pi nni ng of l ay w i t nes s t es t i m ony. S ee Nat’ lHi span i c C i rcus, I

n c. v. R ex Tru cki ng, I n c. , 4 1 4 F
. 3 d 5 46, 550 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)
. Brel and her e c hal l enges t he des c r i pt ive t est i m on y abou tH en ry’ s experi en ce and t rai n in g , not H en ry’ s opi n i on s based th e r e o n . H e n r y ’ s in tr o d u c to r ys ta te m e n ts a b o u t h e rt r a in in ga n de x p e r ie n c e d id notaut om at i c al l y c onver thert es t i m ony i nt o e xper tt es t i m ony. S e c o n d , B r e la n dc o n t e n d s th a tth e c o u r te r r e db ya d m it t in gH e n r y ’s t est i m on y regardi n g t h e def i n i t i o n o f “pri m ary resi den ce”

— a m an da t ory r equi r em entf

ordi sa st err el i ef

as si st ance def

i ned i n t he C ode of Feder al R e g u la t io n s . O n d ir e c t e x a m in a t io n , t h e G o v e r n m e n t a s k e dH e n r yfo r“F E M A ’s d e f i ni t i o n” o f

t he t e r m “ p r i m a r yr e s i d e nc e . ” H e nr yr e s p o nd e dt ha t“ t he CFR
s t at e s t hata pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e i s w he r e a pe r s o n res i des f o ra m aj o r i t y o f

t he year. ” B rel an d’ s c ou n selm ad e no ob jec tion to t h i s s t atem en t
. La t er, on cross e x a m in a tio n , H e n r yg a v e co n flic tin gd e fin itio n s o f th e t e r m “ p r im a r yre s id e n c e .” Bre l and ’ s c o uns e lpr e s s e d H e nr y f ur t he r , po s i ng va r i o us hyp o t he t i c alq ue s t i o ns abou tw h e th e r ce rt ai n persons coul d qu al i f y f or FE M Aassi st an ce w h en — f or vari ou s r eason s— t h ey w ere not act u al l y occupy i n g t h e hom e. B rel an d’ s c ou n sel
a l s o e l i c i t e dt e s t i mo n yf r o m H e n r ys t a t i n gt h a t“ [ m] o s t p e o p l e w o u l da s s u me pri m ary resi den ce is w h e re you l ive. ” Th ese r espon ses, el i ci t ed on cr ossex a m i n a ti on , m ore cl ose l y f i t th e defi n i ti on of exp ert testi m on y th a n h er d i rectex a m i n a ti on testi m on y. T h ere fore, o n t h i s reco rd , B relan dh a s fa i l ed to 1 Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

error .” Un ited

Statesv . Ma rt inez, 6 0 4 F .2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 (5 th C ir .1 9 7 9) (cit ation s o mitt ed); see also Un ited Statesv . C

ald wel l , 58 6 F .3d 3 38, 348(5th Cir. 2 009) (finding no rever sible error where the “testimony elicited bythe defense is closer to expert te stimony tha n is t he testimony of whichit co mp lain s”). 9 de m o ns t r at e t hatt he a dm i s s i o no f He n r y ’ s r e s p o n s e c o n s t i t ut e d c l e are r r o ro n t he p a r t o f th e co u r t. B rel an d’ s argum en tfai l s f or yeta n ot h er r eason . Th e F E M A“ H el p A f t er a D i sast er” G u i de, w h i ch w as provi ded t o al lF E M AH u rri ca n e K atr i n a rel i ef ap pl i c ant s , w as adm i t t e d i nt o ev i de nc e as G o ve r nm e ntE xhibi tF o ur . The Gui de cont ai ne d ade t ai l e d l i s to f e l i gibi l i t y r e qui r e m e nt s f o rFEM A as s i s t anc e. Al t houg h t he G ui de di d no tm e nt i o n “ pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e ” b y nam e , t he G ui de
r e qui r e d t hatt he a ppl i c ant ’ s ho m e i n t he di s as t e r ar e a be t hatho m e i n whi c h t he ap pl i c ant “ us uall y l ive [ s ] and w he r e [ t he ap pl i c ant w as ] l ivi ng at t he t i m e o f t he di sast er. ” B ecau se H en ry’ s t e s t i m o ny w as c um ul ativeo f o th er adm i t t ed evi den ce, h e cann otshow t h at t h e adm i ssi on of t h i s t est i m on y consti t u t ed p l ai n err or. III . B r el and al soc ont ends t hathi s Sixth A m en d m en t ri gh t of con fron tati on w as v io la te dw h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p e r m itt e dth e in tr o d u c tio n o f h is F E M Afile
w i t h ou tr e quir i ng t h e G overnm en tt o produ ce t h e F E M Arepresentat ive w h o t ook h is a p p lic a tio n o v e rth e p h o n e . T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r e q u ir e s th a t “ [i]n a ll crim i n a lpr ose cu ti on s, the accu sed sh a l lenj oythe ri gh t .
. . to b e con fron ted w i th t he w i t ne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . . . . ” U
. S. Cons t
. a m e nd. VI
. Al l e ge d v i o l at i o ns o f t he C on f ronta t i o n Cl aus e o f

t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nta r e “ r e vi e w e d de no vo , bu tare su b j ect to a h a rm l ess erro r an a l ys i s. ” Un ite dS ta tes v. B ell , 367 F. 3d 452, 465 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t e x c lu d e s “t e s tim o n ia l”
o uto f c o ur ts t at e m e nt s e xc e ptw he r e t he w i t ne s s i s una va i l ab l e a nd t he d e fe n d a n t h a s h a da p r io ro p p o r tu n ityto cr o s s e x a m in e th e w itn e s s . C raw f ord Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

The Decl arationan d Relea se form inthe Gui de required applicants to certify that “I 2 understan d th at, if Iintention ally make false stat em en t so rconceal anyinformation in an attempt to obtain disasterai d, it is aviol ation of fe deralan d state l aws, which carrysevere crimin al and civil penaltie s.” The form a ls o in f or med applicants thatinformation they provided to F EMA

could b e given “to law enforc ementagencies . . . w herethere maybea violationor potentialviol ation of the l aw.” 10 v. W ash i ngt on , 54 1 U
. S
. 36 , 59 ( 2 0 0 4 ). T h e S u p rem e C ou rt h a s d eclare dth a t a
s ta te m e n t is “t e s tim o n ia l” w h e n it w a s m a d e “u n d e rcir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h w o u ld l ead an obj ec t ive w i t nes s r eas onabl y t o bel i eve t hat t he st at em en t w ou l d be
a va i l a b l e for u se a t a l a ter tri a l
. ” Id
. at 52 (c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. The G o ve r nm e nt h e r e a r g u e s th a tp r e s e n t in gth e F E M Ar e p r e s e n t a t iv e w h o to o k B r e la n d ’s appl i cat i o n was unne c e s s ar y be c aus e t he a ppl i c at i o n was a b us i ne s s r e c o r d. B u s in e s s re c o r d s a r e “g e n e r a llya d m is s ib le a b s e n t c o n fr o n ta tio n . . . becau se— h avi ng be e n c r eated f or t h e adm i n i st rat i on of an enti t y’ s af

fai rs an d n ot f or t h e pu rpose of

est abli shi n g or provi n g som e factat t ri al

— t h e y are not te s tim o n ia l.” Mele n d ez -D iaz v . Ma ss a ch u se tts , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 3 9

– 4 0 (20 0 9 ). The G o ve r nm e ntc o nt e nds t hatBr e l and ’ s a ppl i c at i o n was a t yp i c alno nt e s t i m o ni alb us i ne s s r e c o r d wi t hi n t he des c r i pt i o n s e to uti n Me le nde z - D i az . B relan darg u es th a t t h e rec ord s ar e testi m on i a l , an dthu s tri gg er th e righ t t o con fr ont at i on, be c ause t hey w oul d “ l ead a n obj ec t ive w i t nes s r eas onabl y t o bel i eve t h at t h e st atem en tw ou l d be a v a i l able f or use atl atert ri al” becau se t el eph on e app l i can t s w ere w arn ed t h at provi di n g fal se i n f orm ati on coul d tr i gger consequ en ces. Sp eci f i cal l y, B rel an d all eges t h at F E M A ’ s “ H el p A f t er a D i sast er” G ui de , w hi c h w as pr o vi de d t o al la ppl i c ant s , w ar ne d t hats t at e m e nt s m ad e i n t he
a p p l i c a t i o n c o u l db e u s e di n a l at e rt r i a la g a i n s tt h e a p p l i c a n t
. T h e F EM A 2
reco rd s, altho u gh the y do con tain w a rn i n gs p erta i n i n g t o t h e ap p l i ca n t’ s d u ty to t e l lt he t r ut h, w e r e b us i ne s s r e c o r ds c r e at e d f o rt he p u rpose o f

a dm i ni s t e r i ng fe de r aldi s as t e rb e ne f i t s s w i f t l y ande f

f i c i e nt l y t o t ho s e v i c t i m s o f H ur r i c ane K a t r i n a wh o we r e e l i g ib l e t o r e c e iv e a s s i s t a n c e . Th e r e c o r d s a r e s i m i l art o t he Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

Although Beetsis an unp ublishe dopinion whichis not bin ding onthis court, it is 3 pers u a sive authorityan d wea doptitsrea so ning . See5th Cir. R . 47 .5.4. 11 Am e r i c an Red C r o s s a ppl i c at i o n i n Un itedS ta tes v. B ee ts
. 242 F. A pp’ x 968, 970 3 (5th C ir
. 20 0 7 ) (un p u b l i sh ed ). In B ee ts , a c as e i n w hi c h t he def endantw as cha rged w i t h f

rau du l en t l y obtai n i n g R ed C ross ben ef i t s, w e f ou n d n o err or w h ere t he G o ve r nm e ntm o ve d t o a dm i tt he def e nda nt ’ s R e d C r o s s appl i c at i o n wi t ho ut th e a c c o m p a n y in gte s tim o n yo f a n A m e r ic a n R e dC r o s s e m p lo y e e . Id
. B ecau se t he G o ve r nm e ntw as no tpr o f fe r i ng t e s t i m o ni alhe ar s ays t at e m e nt s by t he no nt e s t i f yi ng w i t ne s s , t he c o ur t f o und no Conf

r o nt at i o n Cl aus e vi o l at i o n wher e t he
a p p lic a tio n w a s a d m itt e da s a b u s in e s s r e c o r d
. Id
. T h e G overnm en tdi d n otof fer a n yh e a r s a ys t a t e me n t s f r o m t h e i n t a k e r e p r e s e n t a t iv e i n t h e i n s t a n tc a s e , s o we f i n d n o e r r o ri n a dm i t t i ng t he f i l e w i t ho utt he t e s t i m o ny o f t he i nt ak e representat ive. E ven i f t h e i n f

orm ati on i n B rel an d’ s app li ca tion could be consi dered t e s t i m o ni ali n na t ur e , a ny e r r o ri n fai l i n g t o pe r m i thi m t o c o nf r o ntt he i nt ak e r e pr e s e nt at ive w as ha r m l e s s . Br e l anddo e s no tdi s put e the acc ur ac y o f t he i nf or m a ti on r ec or ded byt he FE M Ai nt ake r epr es ent at ive, s pec i f i c al l y t hat Bre l and c l ai m e d t o l ive at 40 96 O l gaD r ive . Br e l andne ve ra r gue s t hatt he i nt ak e r e pr e s e nt at ive l i e d a bo utt hi s i nf o r m at i o n, no rdoe s he c l ai m t hatt hi s s t at e m e nt
w a s s o m e h o w r e c o r d e din e r r o r . I n s t e a d , B r e la n d d is p u t e da ttr ia l o n lyF E M A ’s
c o nc l us i o n t hat4 09 6 O l gaD r ive w as Br e l and ’ s “ pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e . ” Br el and
ne ve rc l ai m s t o ha ve m ad e a ny s t at e m e ntre ga r di ng “ pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e ” t o t he rep rese n ta tiv e w h o to o k h is a p p lic a tio n in fo r m a tio n o v e rth e p h o n e . R a th e r , b o th pa r t i e s a gr e e t hatt hi s c o nc l us i o n was dr awn f r o m B r e l and ’ s st at e m e ntt hathe l ived at t h e add ress — a st atem en t h e does n ot den y m ak i n g
— al on g w i t h ot h er i n f orm ati on provi ded i n t h e app l i cat i on . B rel an d h as dem on st ra te d n o i nj u ry f rom bei n g den i ed the opp ort u n i ty to c on f ront t h e i n t ak e representat ive, so as sum i ng argu end o th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d , th a t e r r o rw a s h a r m le s s . Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 60040

A f in din gof “p ri mary re si de nce” may h ave b een adef initive elem ent inF E MA’sown 4 dete r m in ation of whowas qualifie d to receivebenefits, but the definitionof “primary reside nce”was irrelevant to all but one of the counts upon whichthe defendant was convicted. The sole exceptionwas the count involving theft of governme nt funds of more th an $1,0 00, and there was sufficient evidence apart from Henry’ s testi monyto convict on this count. 12 I V. B rel an d argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n den yi n g h i s R u l e 29 m ot i on fo rju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l, in w h ic h h e a r g u e dth a t t h e e v id e n c e w a s fa c tu a lly i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upp o r thi s c o nvi c t i o n. I n r e vi e w i ng t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he
e vi de nc e , w e m us t“vi e w t he e vi de nc e a n di n f e r e nc e s dr awn t he r e f r o m i n t he l i ght
m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t, a n dw e d e te r m in e w h e th e ra ra tio n a l ju r yco u ld h a v e fou n dthe de fen d a n t gu i l ty b ey on da re a son a b l e d ou b t. ” Uni t e d St a t e s v. Mitch ell , 48 4 F. 3d 76 2, 7 68 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) (c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. Br e l andc o nt e nds t hatH e nr y’ s i nap pr o pr i at e a nd c o nf l i c t i ng t est i m on y w as t he o nl y t e s t i m o ny o f fe r e d t o pr o vet he de f i ni t i o n o f

“ pr i m ar y r e s i de nc e , ” a nd t hatHe n r y ’ s c o nf l i c t i ng d e fin itio n s le ft t h e te r m in s u c h a “s ta te o f u n c e r ta in ty ” t h a t “ it w a s im p o s s ib le f o rt he j ur y t o f

i nd t hatM r . Br e l anda c t e d wi t h m ens re a w he n he c o m m i t t e d t he al l e g e d f

r a ud
. ” To t he e x t e nt t ha t t he d e f i ni t i o n o f p r i m a r y r e s i d e nc e w as r el evantt o t he ju ry ’ s ver di c t , as sum i ng argue ndo t hatBr e l and ’ s c o nt e nt i o ns 4 aboutt he t es t i m oni aldef i ni t i on of

“pr i m ar y re si denc e” are c or r ec t , w e f i nd t hat t h e l i st ed el i gibi l i t y requ i rem en t s c on t ai n ed i n F E M A ’ s “ H el p A f t er a D i sast er” G ui de a dm i t t e d a s G o ve r nm e ntExhibi tFo urw e r e s uf f i c i en tt o s upp o r tt he
c o n v ic tio n . CO NC L US I ON B eca u se B relan dh a s n ot su ccee d ed i n m a k i n g th e sh ow i n gs n ece ssa ryto d is tu rb th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t, th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED. Case: 09-60040 Document: 00511031452 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/19/2010