Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Demarshaf MENYWEATHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-17
Citations: 607 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 14-41036
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Demarshaf MENYWEATHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 424–424

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Demarshaf MENYWEATHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41036
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 2015.
Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Gerard Arrambide, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender-Eastern District, Frisco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Demarshaf Menyweather appeals his jury trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting police officer testimony as lay opinion testimony rather than expert testimony.
We review the district court's evidentia-ry rulings for abuse of discretion, subject to harmless error review. United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 133 (5th Cir.2012). The officers testified that flight from police is evidence of consciousness of guilt and that they did not believe the firearm needed to be fingerprinted in light of the strength of the evidence indicating that Menyweather had possessed the firearm. Contrary to Menyweather's argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the officers' testimony as lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. See Fed.R.Evid. 701; Ebron, 683 F.3d at 136-38. Moreover, any error was harmless because there is not a reasonable possibility that their testimony contributed to the conviction in light of the other strong evidence of Menyweather's guilt. See United States v. Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d 121, 127 (5th Cir.2003).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.