|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
D.C. No. 01-CR-20116-GTV
Mr. Mirelez argues on appeal that the district court erred in admitting his driving record as a self-authenticating document. We review a district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Self-authentication is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 902, which states:
Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: . . . (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.
Fed. R. Evid. 902(4).
The exhibit that is the subject of this petition is a copy of Mr. Mirelez's driving record. This driving record is an official record maintained by the State of Kansas and filed in the Driver Control Bureau of the Division of Vehicles, Department of Revenue, State of Kansas.(1) The exhibit contains not only the record itself, but a notarized certification of the correctness of that record executed by a Certification/Suspension Clerk in the Driver Control Bureau and notarized. Suppl. Rec., exhib. 2 at 1. Accordingly, the exhibit satisfies the requirements of the Rule 902(4) pertaining to self-authentication, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the driving record into evidence.
We GRANT the petition for rehearing and AFFIRM Mr. Mirelez's conviction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
1. Because the driving record qualifies as a public record under F.R.E. 803(8), and is thus excepted from the hearsay rule, Mr. Mirelez's arguments regarding hearsay are without merit.