internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.” Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(1), (4). The government’s “burden of proof for authentication is slight. All that is required is a foundation from which the fact-finder could legitimately infer that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.” United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d at 1425 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As we previously explained: [T]here need be only a pr ing that notes found in the trash outside the defendant’s residence were properly authenticated). Second, the content of the text messages indicates that Mebrtatu was the user of the seized phone and hence the sender and receiver of the messages found on that phone. C.f. Turner, 718 F.3d at 233 (<HOLDING>). Numerous text messages received by each of
holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that the documents contents supported a finding of authenticity since these documents were addressed to the defendants coconspirator and several were responsive to the coconspirators faxes