What is the test for admitting into evidence a cell phone seized at the Port of Entry because agents failed to establish a proper chain of custody?

Sepulveda argues that the district court erred in admitting into evidence cell phones seized at the Port of Entry because agents were unable to establish a proper chain of custody. We disagree. As the district court correctly concluded, "[t]he possibility of a break in the chain of custody goes only to the weight of the evidence." United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1991). Sepulveda also failed to offer any evidence that the cell phone was not his, or any evidence of interference by the agents. "Merely raising the possibility of tampering

Page 3