## Facts

- Edmundo Howard-Arias was a crewmember on the fishing trawler *Don Frank*, which became disabled about 60 miles off the Virginia coast in December 1980.
- After the crew was removed, a U.S. Coast Guard officer boarded the *Don Frank* and found a large quantity of marijuana.
- The Coast Guard attempted to tow the vessel to shore; it later sank roughly 30 miles from Norfolk, Virginia.
- About 240 bales of marijuana were salvaged and brought to port.
- The seized marijuana was turned over among Coast Guard and DEA personnel for storage and testing.
- At trial, the government presented witnesses covering seizure, initial handling, DEA custody, and chemical analysis, but did not call the DEA agent who received the marijuana at the port for transport to the DEA office.
- Howard-Arias argued the marijuana should have been excluded because the government did not prove a continuous chain of custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the marijuana was properly authenticated and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901 despite a missing link in the chain of custody.
2. Whether the district court used improper sentencing procedures.
3. Whether convictions and consecutive sentences for possession with intent to distribute on the high seas and possession with intent to import, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 955a(a) and 955a(d), violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Decision

- The court affirmed admission of the marijuana, holding the government’s authentication evidence was sufficient despite the non-testifying transport agent.
- The court found no reversible error in the sentencing procedures challenged on appeal.
- The court held that §§ 955a(a) and 955a(d) define separate offenses and that consecutive sentences for both did not violate Double Jeopardy.
- Judgment affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Physical evidence is admissible if the proponent makes a sufficient showing under Fed. R. Evid. 901 that the item is what it is claimed to be.
- A gap in the chain of custody does not automatically bar admission; once a prima facie showing of authenticity is made, remaining concerns about possible tampering or substitution generally go to weight for the jury, not admissibility.
- Multiple punishments do not violate Double Jeopardy when each statutory offense requires proof of a fact the other does not (same-elements analysis); Congress may authorize cumulative punishment for distinct offenses.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the marijuana’s admission because the government presented enough authentication evidence even with a missing custodial witness, and it affirmed consecutive sentences because possession with intent to distribute on the high seas and possession with intent to import require different elements and may be punished separately.


United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1982)