Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 11-4986
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00144-RDB-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Dale appeals from his convictions for robbery,
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
raises various claims.
On appeal, he
We affirm.
I.
First, Dale challenges the denial of his motion to
suppress his confession and certain physical evidence.
Dale
contends that his arrest was improper and that his confession
was physically coerced.
of
either
claim
depends
upon
finding
that
the
Government
the
the
evidence
denial
in
of
the
light
motion
most
to
suppress,
favorable
to
we
the
United States v.
A factual finding is
We defer to a
the
district
court
to
observe
2
witnesses
and
weigh
their
credibility
during
pre-trial
motion
to
suppress.
United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court rejected Dales testimony and
found
that
the
officers
assertions
were
credible.
Dale
II.
Dale next asserts that the fingerprint cards from his
prior convictions were improperly admitted in violation of the
Confrontation Clause because he did not have the opportunity to
cross examine the person who obtained the prints and prepared
the card. *
review
Confrontation
Clause
objection
to
an
192, 197 (4th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed (May 31,
2012).
statement
must
be
testimonial
to
be
excludable
admissible
absent
confrontation
not
because
they
been
created
for
the
administration
of
an
entitys
demographic
the
non-testifying
information
from
official
Dale.
and
maintained
for
100
4
took
The
fingerprints
official
did
no
for
identification
purposes.
own
and
not
(without
additional
testimony
and
analysis)
ministerial,
As
objective
observations.
such,
the
relevant
did
not
implicate
the
Confrontation
Clause.
See
United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005)
([F]ingerprinting and photographing a suspect . . . are the
types of routine and unambiguous matters to which the public
records hearsay
of
mechanical,
vehicles
and
crossing
concern
the
border
unambiguous
are
factual
routine
matters
and,
and
as
III.
Dale next contends that the Government failed to prove
that
he
(2006),
However,
possessed
because
he
the
concedes
firearm
firearm
that
under
in
this
18
U.S.C.
question
court
has
was
922(g)(1)
inoperable.
found
that
an
n.3 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d
353, 355 (7th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases holding that firearm
need not be operable to meet definition of firearm under 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(3) (2006)).
merit.
IV.
Finally, Dale contends that evidence that the firearm
was manufactured outside the state where he possessed it was
insufficient to satisfy the interstate commerce nexus required
by
922(g).
However,
he
admits
that
this
evidence
is
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal