23-6199-cr United States v. Chen

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of December, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. No. 23-6199-cr

CHAOLONG CHEN, AKA ZIYUAN ZHANG,

Defendant-Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: COLLEEN P. CASSIDY, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY

FOR APPELLEE: LORENA MICHELEN, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York (Carol Bagley Amon, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Chaolong Chen appeals from a judgment of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.),

convicting him, after a jury trial, of one count of possessing counterfeit postal

keys in violation of

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as

necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court improperly admitted

the testimony of United States Postal Inspector Michael Segnan as lay opinion

2 under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. At trial, Segnan was shown a photograph of

keys recovered either from Chen or near where he was arrested. Segnan testified

that “[t]hose are counterfeit keys, counterfeit postal arrow keys.” App’x 121.

Segnan explained that he reached his conclusion based at least in part on his

experience investigating counterfeit keys. Chen contends that this was in fact

expert testimony, not lay testimony, and that Segnan was neither noticed nor

qualified as an expert as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

We need not resolve Chen’s challenge because, even assuming the District

Court erred in admitting the challenged testimony, any such error was harmless.

“A district court’s erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if the appellate

court can conclude with fair assurance that the evidence did not substantially

influence the jury.” United States v. Flores,

(2d Cir. 2019)

(quotation marks omitted). That is, the evidence was “unimportant in relation to

everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the

record.” United States v. Ho,

(2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks

omitted).

3 In reviewing for harmless error, we consider: “(1) the overall strength of

the prosecution’s case; (2) the prosecutor’s conduct with respect to the

improperly admitted evidence; (3) the importance of the wrongly admitted

[evidence]; and (4) whether such evidence was cumulative of other properly

admitted evidence.” United States v. McCallum,

(2d Cir. 2009)

(quotation marks omitted).

Here, the prosecution’s case was strong, and Inspector Segnan’s

challenged testimony was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.

Independent of the challenged statement, the trial evidence — including the

testimony of victims, law enforcement officials, and other witnesses, as well as

additional testimony of Inspector Segnan without objection — powerfully

supported the jury’s finding that Chen knowingly possessed a counterfeit postal

arrow key.

The following evidence in particular supported Chen’s conviction.

First, Inspector Segnan testified that he and another postal inspector tested

three of the recovered keys. They tested the key found in Chen’s pocket on both

a new handheld United States Postal Service (“USPS”) arrow lock and an older

arrow lock. This key fit inside and was able to twist both arrow locks without

4 fully unlocking them. 1 The inspectors also tested two of the keys found beside

Chen on the same locks. 2 They both fit and twisted the new handheld USPS

arrow lock and were able to completely unlock the older arrow lock. These tests

constitute strong independent evidence that Chen possessed postal arrow keys.

Chen did not challenge this part of Segnan’s testimony or the video of a test that

the Government played for the jury.

Second, Robert Dalton, Jr. — an engineering manager employed by the

exclusive manufacturer of postal arrow keys — testified about the physical

components of an arrow key. He explained that the “bittings” of an arrow key

determine whether the key can open an arrow lock and that official arrow keys

must be “stamped” with a “code” and must have a unique “serial number.”

App’x 154–57. The arrow keys that Chen possessed had “bittings” patterns

similar to that of an official arrow key, but lacked any identifying markings or

serial numbers. App’x 272, 276. As Segnan’s testimony showed that at least two

1 Segnan testified that he did not apply as much force as he could have to open the locks because he did not want the keys to break.

2While no witness testified to having observed Chen in physical possession of the ring of keys that was found by police on the ground, the jury was entitled to draw the obvious inference that these keys, which were within easy reach of Chen, also belonged to Chen. 5 of the keys were postal arrow keys in that they opened postal arrow locks,

Dalton’s testimony established that those keys were counterfeit in that they did

not bear markings that are stamped on all genuine postal arrow keys.

Third, the Government also presented strong evidence that Chen

knowingly possessed the keys and intended to use them to steal mail. He was

arrested after he was seen going through an apartment building’s mailboxes and

removing an envelope. While there was no direct evidence of Chen’s use of the

arrow keys to steal mail, other evidence strongly supported his knowing

possession of the keys for that purpose, including his possession of a credit card

in someone else’s name at the time of his arrest and a prior arrest for removing

mail from other people’s mailboxes in 2021.

In sum, the trial evidence overwhelmingly established that Chen

possessed at least one counterfeit postal arrow key in violation of

. The challenged testimony thus had no substantial effect on the jury’s

verdict. See United States v. Garcia,

, 218–19 (2d Cir. 2005) (erroneous

admission of case agent’s testimony was harmless error where “the admissible

evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt was overwhelming”).

6 We have considered Chen’s remaining arguments and conclude that they

are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court

is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

7