Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-5-2006 Govt of VI v. Barton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1341 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Govt of VI v. Barton" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1316. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1316 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-1341 ___________ GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER BARTON ___________ APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (D.C. No. 04-cr-00089) Chief District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore Territorial Judge: The Honorable Darryl Dean Donohue ___________ ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2005 BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKee and Nygaard, Circuit Judges. (Filed :April 5, 2006) ___________ Richard S. Davis, Esq. (Argued) Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building, Second Floor Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI 00802 Counsel for Appellant Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. (Argued) 5025 Anchor Way, Suite One Gallows Bay Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 Counsel for Appellee ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. The issue in this appeal is whether a copy of a court order, submitted in an attempt to establish the finality of a Florida custody order, was properly admitted into evidence during the trial of Christopher Barton for concealing a material fact from a government agency. The Territorial Court admitted the copy into evidence and, based entirely on the admitted copy, a jury convicted Barton. On appeal, the Appellate Division of the District Court (consisting of three District judges) reversed and vacated the sentence. We agree substantially with the Appellate Division’s opinion that the copy was not admissible under any relevant Federal Rule of Evidence. Accordingly, we will affirm the Appellate Division’s order vacating Barton’s conviction. 2