Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert D. PARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-26
Citations: 69 F. App'x 863
Docket Number: No. 02-30345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert D. PARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert D. PARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-30345.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2003.
Decided June 26, 2003.
Before B. FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Albert Parris ("Parris") appeals after a jury convicted him of nine counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 656 (Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee). For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions.
First, Parris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on Counts Two, Five, and Eleven. Parris failed to raise his objection below, so we review for plain error. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2002). The record reflects sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Parris of all three counts, and we affirm.
Next, Parris claims that ten exhibits were erroneously admitted into evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The exhibits were prepared by a bank employee to balance the teller's in- and-out cash tally. As such, they are business records and admissible—their trustworthiness goes to their weight. A district court has "wide discretion" to decide whether a business record is sufficiently trustworthy. United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 978 (9th Cir.1999). Although Parris properly preserved his objections to these exhibits, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the ten exhibits into evidence. See United States v. Nguyen, 284 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.