IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31379
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD JOSEPH REAUX,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-71-1-R
--------------------
November 13, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald J. Reaux appeals from his convictions, following
a jury trial, of bank robbery and use of a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2113(a) and 924(c)(1).
Reaux contends that the district court erred by denying,
without a hearing, his motion to exclude expert testimony regarding
fingerprint evidence, under the standard of Daubert v. Merrill-Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under FED. R. EVID. 702,
“the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony
. . . is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 01-31379
-2-
589. Daubert “offered an illustrative, but not an exhaustive, list
of factors that district courts may use in evaluating the
reliability of expert testimony.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288
F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593).
The Daubert inquiry is “flexible” and does not “constitute a
‘definitive checklist or test.’” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137, 150 (1999). This court reviews the admission of expert
evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Norris, 217
F.3d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 2000).
In Reaux’s case, the district court relied on United
States v. Havvard, 260 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2001), a Seventh Circuit
case in which that court held that the district court had complied
with Daubert in admitting fingerprint evidence. The district court
noted several factors cited in Havvard in support of admitting
fingerprint evidence under Daubert’s standard. No abuse of
discretion is evident. In any event, any error with respect to the
admission of the fingerprint evidence is harmless, because, even
without such evidence, the case against Reaux was overwhelming.
See United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 157 (5th Cir. 2000),
cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 (2001); United States v. Skillern, 947
F.2d 1268, 1274 (5th Cir. 1991); FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a).
The convictions are AFFIRMED.