UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL ARMSTEAD JEFFERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00221-HEH-1)
Submitted: September 2, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Grossman, CROWGEY, GROSSMAN & CASSIS, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Michael A. Jagels, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Armstead Jefferson was convicted of one count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006), and one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).
On appeal, he claims the district court erred by admitting
evidence of the cocaine base when the chain of custody was not
established. We affirm.
Under Fed. R. Evid. 901, the admission of an exhibit
must be preceded by “evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” This
rule is not intended to be “iron-clad” and is satisfied by
“sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be
and has not been altered in any material respect[.]” United
States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58, 61-62 (4th Cir. 1995). The rule is
not intended to require exclusion of real evidence based on a
missing link in its custody. Id. The ultimate question focuses
on “whether the authentication testimony was sufficiently
complete so as to convince the court that it is improbable that
the original item had been exchanged with another or otherwise
tampered with.” United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363,
366 (4th Cir. 1982). Resolution of a chain of custody question
rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge. Ricco, 52
F.3d at 61.
2
Jefferson acknowledges that under this court’s
existing law, the cocaine base was admissible. He contends,
however, that had he been tried in a Virginia state court, the
evidence would have most likely not been admissible. He urges
this court to adopt Virginia’s stricter rules regarding
establishing the chain of custody.
This court has set forth the applicable law in this
circuit regarding chain of custody issues. It is axiomatic that
a panel of this court may not overrule the holding of a prior
panel. See United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th
Cir. 2005). “[O]ur Constitution establishes a system of dual
sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.”
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). “Foremost among
the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and
enforce a criminal code.” Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93
(2006). “Because crime is traditionally viewed as an offense
against the sovereignty of the government, the power of
punishment appertains to sovereignty, and may be exercised,
whenever the sovereign has a right to act, as incidental to his
constitutional powers[.]” United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d
191, 197 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Furthermore, the district court does not have an
inherent power “to develop rules that circumvent or conflict
3
with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Carlisle v.
United States, 517 U.S. 416, 426 (1996).
The district court was without authority to adopt
Virginia’s rules applicable to establishing the chain of custody
of controlled substances in criminal prosecutions. The district
court properly recognized that under the holdings of this
circuit, the chain of custody was sufficiently established and
the challenged evidence was admissible.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4