USA v. Hall

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLEVELAND DAVID HALL, II,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CR-25-341-D
ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion in Limine to Pre-Admit Document
Related to Defendant’s Prior Conviction into Evidence [Doc. No. 49]. The government also
filed a Supplemental Motion in Limine Related to Admitting Defendant’s Prior Conviction
into Evidence [Doc. No. 57]. Defendant did not respond to the motion or supplemental
motion.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in an Indictment [Doc. No. 8], with one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It is alleged that on
or about August 5, 2025, Defendant, Cleveland David Hall, II, with knowledge that he had
previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one
year, knowingly possessed a firearm which was in and affecting interstate or foreign
commerce in that said firearm had previously crossed state lines to reach Oklahoma.
In its motion in limine, the government seeks to pre-admit into evidence a certified
copy of Defendant’s previous judgment in a criminal case. In its supplemental motion in
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 58 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
limine, the government seeks to pre-admit into evidence additional documents related to
Defendant’s previous term of incarceration.
DISCUSSION
Motions in limine are not formally recognized under the Federal Rules; however,
district courts have long recognized the potential utility of pretrial rulings under the courts’
inherent powers to manage the course of trial proceedings. 	Luce v. United States,
469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). “A motion in limine presents the trial court with the opportunity
‘to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that
are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.’”
Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 2007) (quoting
Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996)).
Some in limine rulings are preliminary in nature because the required balancing may
be reassessed as the evidence is actually presented. Accordingly, a “district court ‘may
change its ruling at any time for whatever reason it deems appropriate.’” United States v.
Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1152 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th
Cir. 1995)).
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay.
It states:
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of
whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(22) Judgment 	of 	a 	Previous 	Conviction. Evidence 	of 	a 	final
judgment of conviction if:
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 58 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not
a nolo contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by
imprisonment for more than a year;
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the
judgment; and
(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a
purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the
defendant.
The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect
admissibility.
F ED. R. E VID. 803(22).
Further, Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4) provides that certain documents are self-
authenticating. Specifically,
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no
extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record –
or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office
as authorized by law – if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the
certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a
federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
F ED. R. E VID. 902(4).
The government first filed its motion in limine seeking to pre-admit into evidence a
certified copy of Defendant’s previous judgment in a criminal case—CR-11-270-JRH-
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 58 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
BKE—imposed on January 22, 2014, in Georgia.1 The government then filed a supplemental
motion seeking to also pre-admit documents related to Defendant’s previous Georgia
conviction—including, the original judgment and commitment, a photograph of Defendant,
a copy of Defendant’s fingerprints, height and weight descriptions of Defendant, Defendant’s
personal identifying information, and a Certificate of Record signed by the custodian of
records at BOP Federal Correction Institution (FCI) Jesup.
The government argues that the previous judgment is admissible as an exception to
the rule against hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22). Further, the
government argues that this document is self-authenticating because it was certified as a true
copy of a public record by Clerk of Court John Triplett [Doc. No. 54]. The Court agrees with
the government that the certified copy of Defendant’s previous judgment is admissible as an
exception to the rule against hearsay and that it is self-authenticating under Federal Rule of
Evidence 902(4). Therefore, the exhibit shall be pre-admitted into evidence.2
In its supplemental motion, the government argues that the judgment, photograph of
Defendant, and fingerprints of Defendant are self-authenticating in that they are copies of an
official record and document recorded in a public office and have been certified as correct
by the case management coordinator and official custodian of records at FCI Jesup, David
Nogle [Doc. No. 57]. The government further argues that the certificate is self-authenticating
under 902(4)(B) because the certificate complies with a federal statute. 18 U.S.C. § 4004
1 Defendant pled guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5
kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride; and (2) possession with intent to distribute 5 or
more kilograms of cocaine.
2 The Defendant has refused to stipulate to the fact of his prior felony conviction.
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 58 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
states “[t]he wardens and superintendents, associate wardens and superintendents, chief
clerks, and record clerks, of Federal penal or correctional institutions, may administer oaths
to and take acknowledgments of officers, employees, and inmates of such institutions, but
shall not demand or accept any fee or compensation therefor.” The Court agrees with the
government that the documents related to Defendant’s previous conviction are self-
authenticating and shall be pre-admitted into evidence.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the United States’ Motion in Limine to Pre-Admit Document
Related to Defendant’s Prior Conviction into Evidence [Doc. No. 49] and Supplemental
Motion in Limine Related to Admitting Defendant’s Prior Conviction into Evidence [Doc.
No. 57] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 th day of January, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-00341-D Document 58 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5