NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________ No. 19-1757 _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PATRICK WALKER, Appellant _________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-18-cr-00190-001) District Judge: Hon. Gerald J. Pappert _________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 9, 2020 Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 28, 2020) _________________ OPINION** _________________ ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Patrick Walker appeals his convictions for bribery1 and attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana.2 He contends that (i) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana; (ii) it was error to admit a law enforcement agent’s “undesignated expert” testimony; and (iii) the Government failed to properly authenticate two exhibits. For the following reasons, we will affirm. I. Background In August 2016, law enforcement agents observed a United States mail carrier provide Walker with a suspicious package.3 Agents did not immediately arrest Walker or the mail carrier to avoid compromising their then-pending, separate investigation. In January 2017, law enforcement agents questioned the mail carrier. Agents uncovered that, within the past several months, the mail carrier diverted numerous packages to Walker in exchange for money.4 The packages were not addressed to Walker, but were instead addressed elsewhere. Agents also uncovered that Walker directed the rerouting of the packages by calling the mail carrier to identify packages that should be diverted and arranging a pick-up location on the mail carrier’s postal route. After 1 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A), (C). 2 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). 3 We will refer to Charles Walker as the “mail carrier” to avoid confusion with Appellant. 4 Indeed, the mail carrier admitted to diverting two packages to Walker on the day he was questioned by agents. 2 confessing to his role in this offense, the mail carrier agreed to cooperate with the Government. As part of his cooperation, agents began monitoring and recording the mail carrier’s communications with Walker. Soon after, Walker called the mail carrier to obtain his work schedule and provided details as to a package he was expecting. On January 12, 2017, agents identified the package, applied for a search warrant, and, upon searching the package, recovered marijuana. Over the coming weeks, Walker called and texted the mail carrier to coordinate delivery of several additional packages. Agents seized three packages containing marijuana on February 9, 2017 and, on February 10, 2017, attempted a controlled delivery of those packages. The mail carrier called Walker and suggested a location to meet and deliver the packages. Walker, however, changed the meeting location and asked the mail carrier what he was driving. Because the mail carrier was not driving his usual postal vehicle, Walker became suspicious that he was being set up. Nevertheless, both proceeded to meet at Walker’s suggested location. Walker, however, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals