17‐1660‐cr United States v. Vazquez UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 17th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 4 5 PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 12 Appellee, 13 14 v. No. 17‐1660‐cr 15 16 JUSTIN VAZQUEZ, 17 18 Defendant‐Appellant. 19 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 20 FOR APPELLANT: Mehmet K. Okay, The Okay 21 Law Firm, Batavia, NY. 22 1 FOR APPELLEE: Tiffany H. Lee, Assistant 2 United States Attorney, for 3 James P. Kennedy, Jr., United 4 States Attorney for the 5 Western District of New York, 6 Rochester, NY. 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western 9 District of New York (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., Chief Judge). 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 12 Justin Vazquez appeals from a judgment of conviction of the District Court 13 (Geraci, C.J.), following a jury trial at which Vazquez was found guilty of 14 possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 15 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Vazquez’s only argument is that 16 the District Court abused its discretion in admitting a 911 call from Dorene 17 Arroyo, Vazquez’s mother, in which she stated that Vazquez had been holding 18 her hostage with a loaded gun for three days and asked for the police to come 19 immediately. Relying on the hearsay exceptions for present sense impressions 20 and excited utterances, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)–(2), the District Court admitted 21 the 911 call as evidence of Vazquez’s possession of the firearm, the only contested 2 1 element of the offense. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 2 facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to 3 explain our decision to affirm. 4 The District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 911 call. 5 See United States v. Gonzalez, 764 F.3d 159, 168 (2d Cir. 2014) (stating that 6 evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Federal Rule of 7 Evidence 803(1), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals