USA v. Jose Belloc-Hernandez, No. 15-50512 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50512 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 27, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JOSE LUIS BELLOC-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-436-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Belloc-Hernandez was convicted after a jury trial of being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He argues that the district court abused its discretion when it permitted the Government to introduce into evidence documents from Belloc- Hernandez’s alien file (“A-file”), which showed that Belloc-Hernandez lacked documentation to be present in this country. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 No. 15-50512 We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ned, 637 F.3d 562, 569 (5th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) creates an exception to the hearsay rule for a record kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, if, among other things, it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record, “as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.” FED. R. EVID. 803(6); see also United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 792 (5th Cir. 2008). Belloc-Hernandez argues that the Government’s witness, Border Patrol Agent Petersen, was not the custodian of his A-file and was not an “other qualified witness.” We have held that a qualified witness for purpose of Rule 803(6) is one who can explain the system of record keeping and vouch that the requirements of the Rule 803(6) are met; such a witness need not have personal knowledge of the record keeping practice or the circumstances under which the objected to records were kept. United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345, 356 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 1989). Agent Petersen described the procedure for storing A-files at the El Paso facility and the authentication procedure for files that are reproduced. She also testified that Belloc-Hernandez’s file had been made and preserved in the regular course of the agency’s business and in accord with the agency’s procedures. Although Petersen could not give the names of individuals at the El Paso facility who were “custodians” of Belloc-Hernandez’s file while it was there, she nevertheless adequately explained the agency’s record keeping system. See Box, 50 F.3d at 356. Thus, Belloc-Hernandez fails to show that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted documents from his A-file into evidence under Rule 803(6). See Box, 50 F.3d at 356; Iredia, 866 F.2d at 120. 2 Case: 15-50512 Document: 00513612533 No. 15-50512 AFFIRMED. 3 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
