# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 13 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Ja m es Ant on io Mo rri so n, J r.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 13 Fil ed : Ap ril 8, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Ja m es Mo rri so n, J r., of u nl awfu l p os se ss io n o f am m un it io n

as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ).
Mo rri so n a pp eal s, ar gu in g th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y ad m it ti ng 1

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.ev id en ce of pu rch as es , sa le s, an d po ss es si on of fir earm s an d am m uni tion by Mo rri so n

an d h is ass oc ia te s. We affir m

.

On Apr il 25
, 20 11
, an ag en t of th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, Tob acco , Fi rear m s an d Exp lo si ve s rece iv ed a rep or t th at Ja ne ss a Ho ve ha d pu rch as ed m ul ti pl e fir earm s wit hi n a f i v e

- d a y p eri od

. In ve st ig at io n rev eal ed th at Hov e res id ed in an ap art m en t in Am es , Io wa; th e m ai lb ox at Hov e’s ad dr es s di sp la y ed th e na m es of bo th Hov e an d
Mo rri so n. ATF of

fic ers co nt act ed Hov e an d le arn ed th at in earl y Mar ch 20 11
, Hov e ha d ob ta in ed a pe rm it to p u r c h a s e fir earm s, at Mo rri so n’s be he st

. Mo rri so n, a
pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on , wan te d a fir earm fo r h i msel f as well as fir earm s an d

am m un it io n to se ll to fri en ds

. Acco rd in g to Hov e, sh e pu rch a s ed te n pi st ol s fo r M o r r i s o n be twee n earl y Mar ch an d th e m id dl e of Apr il 20 11
, an d sh e pu rch as e d

am m un it io n fo r Mo rri so n o n t hr ee o ccas io ns du rin g ro ug hl y th e sa m e p eri od

.

On Apr il 28
, 20 11
, la w en fo rcem e n t o f f i c ers ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt at Hov e’s ap art m en t an d fo un d a bo x of ni ne -m il li m et er am m un it io n on a co ffee ta bl e. H o v e te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d pu rch as ed th e am m un it io n fo r Mo rri so n an d gi ve n i t t o hi m in th e ap art m en t, aft er an un su cces sf ul at te m pt to ret ur n it to th e st or e fro m whi ch sh e ha d pu rch as ed it

. The of fic ers al so se iz ed m en ’s cl ot hi ng an d pe rs on al it em s th at be lo ng ed to Mo rri so n. On Ju ly 27
, 20 11
, a gr a n d ju r y ret ur ne d a on e-co un t in di ct m en t ag ai ns t Mo rri so n, ch arg in g hi m wit h un la wfu l po ss es si on of th e

am m un it io n a s a p rev io us ly con vi ct ed fel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 )

an d 9 24 (a)( 2)

.

Befo re tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed in li min e fo r a ru li ng th at ev id en ce of th e fir earm st raw-p ur ch as in g sc he m e was ad m is si bl e. I n pa rti cu la r, th e go ve rn m en t

so ug ht to pr es en t te st im on y fro m Hov e reg ard in g he r ro le in th e sc he m e, st at em en ts fro m Mo rri so n ack no wledg in g so m e as pe ct s of th e sc he m e, ev id en ce th at of fic ers ha d fo un d a fir earm i n H o v e ’s car aft er Mo rri so n co ns en te d to a se arch of it
, an d

te st im on y fro m Sco tt Edwar ds t h a t he ha d pu rch as ed two fir earm s fro m Mo rri so n.

-2

-The go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at th e ev id en ce was ad m is si bl e as re s g es ta e ev id en ce o f

t h e c o n t ex t of Mo rri so n’s un la wfu l po ss es si on of th e se iz ed am m un it io n or , al te rn at iv el y , as ev id en ce of m o t i v e , kn owl ed ge , an d in te nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ). Over Mo rri so n’s o pp os it io n, t he di st ric t cou rt r ul ed th e ev id en ce ad m is si bl e as re s g es ta e

.

At tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d th e ch al le ng ed te st im on y

. Defen se wit ne ss es
t e s t i f i e d th at Mo rri so n ha d m ov ed ou t of Hov e’s ap art m en t by t he m id dl e of Ap r i l

. A jury co nv ic te d Mo rri so n, a n d th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to ei gh ty-fou r

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, to be fo ll owe d by th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Mo rri so n
ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce of th e un la wfu l

pu rch as es , sa le s, an d po ss es si on of fir earm s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v. La Due , 56 1 F .3d 85 5, 8 57 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W e se e no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it ev id en ce of th e fi rear m -p ur ch as in g s ch em e as co nt ex t for Mor ris on ’s un la wfu l po ss es si on of th e am m un it io n. W e ha ve reco gn iz ed th at t h e s c o pe of rel ev an t ev id en ce un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 1 in cl ud es “ ev id en ce ‘pro vi di ng th e co nt ex t in whi ch th e cri m e oc cu rred
, i.e. th e re s ge st ae .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sa va ge , 86 3 F.2 d
59 5, 59 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 )). “ Alt ho ug h re s ge st ae ev id en ce so m et im es im pl ic at es th e de fen d a n t in ot he r act s, we ha ve co nc lu de d th at whe re act s are in ex tri cab ly in t e r t w i n e d w it h th e ch arg ed cri m e, th ey are no t ex tri ns ic
, an d th us no t m erel y ch arac te r ev id en ce go ve rn ed by [ R u le 40 4( b) ]. ” Id

. at 85 8. In Uni te d St at es v. Rob er ts , 25 3 F.3 d 11 31 (8 th C ir. 20 01 ), fo r ex am pl e, we he ld th at ev id en ce of a de fen da nt ’s pr io r ba nk ro bb eri es was ad m is si bl e un de r a re s ge st ae th eo ry in a
pr os ecu ti on fo r a n ew ba nk ro bb ery, be cau se th e pr io r ro bb eri es “ he lp ed to ex pl ai n bo th th e g en es is an d t he ex ecu ti on ” o f th e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. Id . at 1 13 4.

The di sp ut ed evide nc e in thi s ca se de m onst ra te d th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e of fen se an d te nd ed lo gi cal ly to pr ov e on e or m or e el em en ts of Mo rri so n’s

-3

-un la wfu l po ss es si on of am m un it io n. Se e Moo re v. Uni te d St at es , 17 8 F.3 d 99 4, 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). It sh owe d a pa tt ern or sc he m e of st raw pu rch as es an d th us he lp ed to

ex pl ai n ho w t he of

fen se of co nv ic ti on co m

m en ced an d oc cu rred

. Se e Rob er ts , 2 53
F .3d at 11 34

. Evi de nc e of th e fir earm -p ur ch as in g sc he m e was pr ob at iv e o f
Mo rri so n’s kn owl ed ge an d ex pl ai ne d h o w an d why he us ed Hov e to acq ui re
pr oh ib it e d am m

un it io n. The rece nt st raw pu rch as es by Hov e arg ua bl y pl ay ed an in te gr al ro le in th e of

fen se of co nv ic ti on

. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t th us reas on ab ly

co nc lu de d t ha t t he ev id en ce was rel ev an t.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-