Opinion ID: 799063
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breathalyzer Tests

Text: Mr. Cope argues that the district court put too much weight on the results of the two breathalyzer tests in light of Dr. Rosen's testimony that they were unreliable. [4] The district court found that the two breathalyzer tests were the most compelling evidence against Mr. Cope. Cope, 2011 WL 2491283, at . Although the court acknowledged that the difference in the two results was significant given the 20-minute time period between them, it conclude[d] that the breath test results [we]re valid and reliable within the confines of the analytic variability expected of such a device. Id. at . The court stated that Mr. Cope's experience drinking alcohol, the .02 percent variability inherent in the breathalyzer results, and the testimony that the breathalyzer machine was functioning properly showed that the difference between the two results did not render the tests invalid or unreliable. The district court did not err in relying on the results of the breathalyzer tests. Although Mr. Cope's expert, Dr. Rosen, testified that the .033 elimination rate suggested by the results of the breathalyzer tests was not physiologically possible, Appx., Vol. II, at 537, the government's expert, Ms. Burbach, testified that she had seen elimination rates of .036 in the laboratory and as high as .056 in the literature. She also testified that Mr. Cope's high elimination rate demonstrated that he was an experienced drinker and that there was no evidence that the results of the breathalyzer tests were invalid. [W]e are not in the position to revisit the [fact-finder's] credibility assessments, nor are we allowed to re-weigh conflicting evidence. United States v. Oldbear, 568 F.3d 814, 824 (10th Cir.2009). Further, [w]e do not question the [fact-finder's]. . . conclusions about the weight of the evidence. United States v. Bowen, 437 F.3d 1009, 1014 (10th Cir.2006) (quotations omitted); see also Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1257 (10th Cir.2007) (We review only the sufficiency of the evidence, not its weight. . . .). The district court was entitled to weigh this competing testimony, and we cannot say that the district court put improper weight on the breathalyzer results.