## Facts

- A state drug task force learned that James M. Laster, a Universal Testing Inc. (UTI) employee, ordered hydriodic acid, a methamphetamine precursor, using UTI’s name without authorization.
- Hydriodic acid purchases required diversion-control paperwork; documentation listed Laster as an authorized purchasing agent.
- Law enforcement reviewed supplier records and interviewed Laster, who stated he was contacted by an older man seeking chemicals associated with methamphetamine production and that he expected payment for obtaining them.
- Laster later admitted making three trips with Jerry Lear to pick up hydriodic acid in Illinois and receiving payment per bottle; Lear corroborated and admitted additional solo pickups.
- At trial, the government introduced supplier purchase and attempted-purchase records to corroborate defendants’ statements and link them to repeated precursor transactions.
- A jury convicted Laster and Lear of federal drug-related offenses arising from supplying hydriodic acid for methamphetamine manufacture.
- At sentencing, the district court determined drug type and quantity under the Sentencing Guidelines based on a preponderance of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether records of purchases and attempted purchases of hydriodic acid were improperly admitted as hearsay, insufficiently authenticated, or unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
2. Whether, after *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, the district court could determine drug type and quantity for Guidelines sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence rather than requiring jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The supplier records were properly admitted as business records and were adequately authenticated through qualified witness testimony.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 because the records were highly probative of defendants’ involvement and corroborated their admissions.
- *Apprendi* did not require resentencing because the sentences imposed did not exceed the statutory maximums authorized by the jury’s verdict; judicial fact-finding on drug type and quantity for Guidelines purposes remained permissible.
- The district court’s drug type and quantity findings were not clearly erroneous on the record.

## Legal Principles

- Business records are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) when shown to be created and kept in the regular course of business as a regular practice and supported by testimony from a custodian or other qualified witness.
- Rule 403 permits exclusion only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; evidence linking defendants to repeated precursor transactions and corroborating admissions is strongly probative in drug manufacturing cases.
- Under *Apprendi*, any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; if the sentence remains within the statutory maximum, the court may find drug type and quantity for Guidelines purposes by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Appellate review of district court drug quantity and type determinations under the Guidelines is for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that routine supplier documentation of hydriodic-acid transactions was admissible as authenticated business records and that judicial findings of drug type and quantity for Sentencing Guidelines calculations did not violate *Apprendi* when the resulting sentences stayed within the statutory maximums authorized by the jury’s verdict.


United States v. Laster, 258 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 2001)