facie showing, to the court, of authenticity, not a full argument on admissibility. Once a prima facie case is made, the evidence goes to the jury and it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence, not the court. The only requirement is that there has been substantial evidence from which they could infer that the document was authentic. Id. at 1404 (quoting United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 328-29 (3d Cir. 1992)). The government has presented substantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the text messages in question were authentic and attributable to Mebrtatu. First, as Trooper Lora testified at trial, the device containing these text messages was found on Mebrtatu’s person. C.f. United States v. Turner, 718 F.3d 226, 233 (3d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d at 329
holding that an unconstitutional seizure occurred when police officers discovered that a suspect illegally sold alcohol from his home and ordered him to open the door involuntarily to be arrested inside his home holding that foreign bank documents found inside a persons home were properly authenticated 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 documents produced in response to discovery requests were authenticated under rule 901b4 of the federal rules of evidence and constituted party admissions under rule 801d2a holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist