Opinion ID: 807946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural and Evidentiary Arguments

Text: We begin by briefly addressing—and rejecting—three of Chivers’s issues on appeal. Chivers first argues that the evidence introduced at trial established that Singleton was part of a separate conspiracy with Davis that did not include Chivers, and, accordingly, that the evidence of that conspiracy prejudiced Chivers’s defense. Because Chivers failed to raise this issue before the district court, we review for plain error. See, e.g., Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The evidence at trial linked Chivers to Singleton and Davis, and Chivers was charged with and convicted of conspiracy. We thus find no error in the district court’s joinder of Chivers, Singleton, and Davis in the same criminal action. In any event, Chivers makes no effort to explain why the evidence introduced at trial—at which only Chivers and Sherrion were tried—prejudiced his substantial rights. We affirm the district court on this issue. Chivers next contends—in two conclusory sentences—that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. Because he provides no explanation in support of this argument, we consider it abandoned. United States v. Stalnaker, 3 Case: 11-10430 Document: 00511975410 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 No. 11-10430 571 F.3d 428, 434 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Where a defendant asserts ‘that the evidence was insufficient to convict him’ but fails ‘to make any argument whatsoever to support this contention,’ the issue is considered abandoned.”) (citation omitted). In any case, there was plenty of evidence against Chivers. Chivers asserts in his final evidentiary objection that the district court erred in admitting Exhibit 59’s timeline of events. We review challenges to a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, “but affirm so long as any error is harmless.” United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535, 546 (5th Cir. 2001). To prevail, Chivers “must demonstrate that the district court’s ruling caused him substantial prejudice.” Id. “Rule 1006 [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] allows admission of summaries when (1) the evidence previously admitted is voluminous, and (2) review by the jury would be inconvenient.” Id. at 547. “Summary charts in particular are admissible when (1) they are based on competent evidence already before the jury, (2) the primary evidence used to construct the charts is available to the other side for comparison so that the correctness of the summary may be tested, (3) the chart preparer is available for cross-examination, and (4) the jury is properly instructed concerning use of the charts.” Id. We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s admission of Exhibit 59. The Government used Exhibit 59 to summarize claim records and policy documents that totaled approximately 1,900 pages and were not subject to convenient in-court examination. This evidence was already before the jury and was also available to Chivers. Furthermore, the chart’s preparer testified regarding Exhibit 59, and thus was available for cross-examination. Finally, the district court instructed the jury that Exhibit 59 was not independent evidence, was admitted to assist them in summarizing other evidence, and was to be disregarded if the jury found it to be inaccurate. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the district court’s ruling on this issue. 4 Case: 11-10430 Document: 00511975410 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 No. 11-10430