## Facts

- Kathleen Kremser Jones stole a credit-card application from a relative’s mailbox, applied for a credit card in the relatives’ names, and used it for twenty ATM and hotel charges in July 1991 totaling $3,748.08.
- A federal jury convicted Jones of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), using a fictitious or false name in furtherance of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1342) (two counts), using an unauthorized access device (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2)), possessing stolen mail (18 U.S.C. § 1708), and obstruction of correspondence (18 U.S.C. § 1702).
- The government relied on handwriting evidence to link Jones to key documents, including the credit-card application, a post-office-box registration form used to receive the card, and motel registration forms bearing the fraudulently obtained Visa number.
- A forensic document analyst testified as an expert and compared questioned signatures to known writings and exemplars stipulated as admissible by the parties.
- The defense refused to stipulate to a greeting card allegedly sent by Jones to Bruce Cronin; Cronin testified he received it, it contained personal family information, and it was signed with Jones’s name, but he was not independently familiar with her handwriting.
- The district court admitted the greeting card as authenticated, and the expert used it as one comparison specimen.
- At sentencing, the district court enhanced Jones’s sentence based on prior time she had spent in home detention, treating it as “imprisonment” under the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 by admitting the greeting card as an authenticated writing attributable to Jones, despite the recipient’s lack of handwriting familiarity.
2. Whether the district court erred under the Sentencing Guidelines by treating prior home detention as “imprisonment” for purposes of a sentence enhancement.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Jones’s convictions.
- The court held that the greeting card was properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence, and its admission (and use as a handwriting comparison specimen) was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court vacated the sentence to the extent it was enhanced based on time Jones spent in home detention.
- The case was remanded for resentencing without the improper home-detention-based enhancement.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 901(a) requires only evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims; the threshold for authentication is modest.
- A document may be authenticated by distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances, including its contents and manner of receipt, even if no witness can authenticate the handwriting through prior familiarity. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).
- Disputes about the strength of authentication evidence typically affect weight for the factfinder rather than admissibility, so long as Rule 901’s threshold is met.
- For Sentencing Guidelines purposes, home detention is generally treated as a condition of probation or supervised release and is not equivalent to “imprisonment” for enhancements that require incarceration.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of a purported handwriting exemplar authenticated by contents and circumstances under Rule 901, affirmed the fraud-related convictions, and required resentencing because the district court improperly treated prior home detention as imprisonment when enhancing the sentence.


United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997)