FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 1 0, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1568 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Docket N o. 03-00713 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us MARLON JAM ES YEARBY, D ef en dant- Appe llant. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

(June 10, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s.
PE R CU RIA M: O n O ct obe r 8, 200 3, aro und 1:0 0 a
. m . , of fi ce r Co nni e Curt is o f the D eK al b Co unty , G eo rg iaP oli ce D ep ar tm en t r es pond ed

to a 911 ca ll fr om

Ms
. Me tr io Low e w ho reported that appellant, an ex-boy friend, had sm ashed windows in her2

ap ar t m en tan dh erau t o m o b i l e w i t h a b as eb al l b at . Lo we g av e C u rt i s ap p el l an t ’s phy sic al de sc ri pti on and the m ak e, m ode l and t ag num be r of the D odge Ram

pic kup tru ckap pe ll an t d ro ve ; h is fat he r own edth e truc k. Cu rti s, i n t urn, t ol d Lo we t h at s h e s h o u l dg o t o th e mag i s t ra t e’s co u rt an do b t ai n wa rr an t s fo r ap p el l an t ’s
ar re st. T he n, if

appe llant r et

ur ne d, she c oul d c al l 91 1 and s ay that a m anf or w hom
arre st warran ts ha d b een is su edwas a t h er ap art m en t. O n O ct obe r 9, a t 4: 00 a
. m . , L ow e m ad e an oth er 911 c al l t o th e pol ic e an d said that appellant was standing outsid e her w indo w. O ffice r Curtis w as dis pa tc he d to the sc en e. A lth oughthe dis pa tc he r did not ide nti fy appe llant a s th e reason for L owe’ s call, Curtis assum ed that Low e had called to report that ap pe ll an t was ha ras si ng he r an d t ha t warran ts ha d b een is su edforhi s arres t. As she approached Low e’ s apartm ent com plex, she sawa D odge Ram pick-up truck le av ing the sc en e. S he r anthe ta g and l earn ed that the tr

uc k w as r eg ist er ed

to a
m an with appellant’ s surnam e. T his, coupled with the fact that she knew that
warra nt s h adbe en is su edforap pe ll an t, p ro m pt edCu rti s t o c on du cta tr affi c st op . A ft er ide nti fy ing appe llant a s th e dr ive r (and s ole oc cu pant o f the tr

uc k) , she too k him int o c ust ody
. A nothe r of fi ce r, K
. C. P ay

ton , arr ive d onthe sc en e an d
co nduc te d an in ve nto ry

se ar chof the ve hic le
. H e fo und a fu lly -l oa de d a ssa ult r if le and a paper bag full of sm all plastic baggies th at appeare d to contain cra ck3

co cai ne . A N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg iagr an d j ur

y ind ic te d a

ppe llant i n C ount

O ne fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); in Coun t Tw o for possessio n of crac k cocaine, in vio lation of 21 U.S. C. § 841 (a)( 1); and in Coun t Thre e for possession o f a f irear m in furtherance of a drug offense (i. e. , C ount Tw o), in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1). A j ury
co nvi ct ed appe llant o n C ount s O ne and T w o ( ac qui tti ng h im on C ount T hr ee ), and th e d is tri ctco ur t s en te nc edhi m to co nc urren t p ris on ter m s o f 12 0 m on th s. He now appeals his convictio ns, asking that th ey be vacated and the case rem anded fo r a ne wtr ia l. Appe llant c ha lle nge s hi s c onvi ct ion s onthe se gr ound s: 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his m oti on t o se ve r the
co unt s of the ind ic tm en t f

or tr ia l; 2) the c our

t a buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it a llo w ed the G ove rn m en t t o intro duc e int o e vid en ce inf orm at ionc onc er

nin g th e na tur e an d ba sis of the
w ar rants O ff ic er Curt is r el ie d onin ef

fe ct ing his arr es t; 3) the c our

t a buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it a llo w ed the G ove rn m en t t o i n t r o du c e i n t o e v i d e n c e s t a t e men t s h e mad e wh i l e i n c u s t o d y; 4) the c our

t a buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it a llo w ed the G ove rn m en t t o4

introdu ce into pursuant to Fed. R. E vid. 404(b) evidence of a prior bad
ac t; 5) the c our

t’ s A lle n c harg e w as “ inh er en tly c oe rc ive
. ”; 6) the c our

t’ s e rr or s c onsi de re d to ge the r de nie d a ppe llant a f ai r tr ia l. W e co ns id er t he se ch al le ng es in ord er. 1) B ec au se e vid en ce that a ppe llant w as ac onvi ct ed

f el on w oul d be br ough t be fo re the j ur

y on C ount O ne , he w an te d th at

c ount se ve re d f ro m the r em ai nin g
co unt s of the ind ic tm en t; if

Co unt s T w o and T hr ee w er e tr ie d se parate ly , he tho ught , th e fa ct

of his pr ior c onvi ct ionw oul d be ke pt f ro m the j ur y a t the tr ia l on tho se c ount s. H is arg um en t i s f ri vol ous. Appe llant s tip ulate d th at he w as a
co nv ic te d fe lo n. Th e jury was no t i nf or m ed , th ou gh , of t he off en se of c on vi ct io n. When the Governm ent in prosecutin g the second coun t introdu ced evidence that (prior to the com

m issio n of the Count Two off ense) appellant had been convicted of tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne , the j ur

y w as le ft w iththe im

pr es sio n—whic h ne ith er

party
co ntr ad ic te d—tha t the c oc ai ne of fe nse w as the sam e fe lon y that r el at ed

to Co unt O ne . A ssu m ing that the j ur y som eh owsur

m ise d th at

the c oc ai ne of

fe nse and the sti pul at ed of fe nse r el at ing to Co unt

O ne w er e not

the sam e of

fe nse , w e fi nd n o
u n du e p re ju d i ce t o ap p el l an tan dh en ce n o ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o n i n th e c o u rt ’s
re fu sa l t o se ve r co unt s.5

2) T his c ha lle nge is fr ivo lou s. T he G ove rn m en t w as obv iou sly e nti tle d to explain why

Of ficer Curtis stopp ed appellant’ s vehicle; that is, because she had
warra nt s fo r hi s arres t. 3) T he state m en ts a

ppe llant m ad e w er e spon tane ous. Whe n O ff ic e Payton found th e fire arm , a

ppellant exclaim ed, “ That’ s not m ine, that’ s not st olen, either. ” When Payton un covered the drugs, appellant shout ed, “ That’ s not m ine either. ” N ei the r utt er an ce w as the pr oduc t of pol ic e que sti oni ng. 4) T he Ru le 404 (b ) ev ide nc e of appe llant’ s pr ior

inv olv em en t w ithc oc ai ne
wa s obvi ouslyrelevant beca use appellant had pl aced his intent-to-traffic k crac k
co ca ine in iss ue . A dm itt ing it int o e vid en ce w as an a

ppr opr ia te dis cr et ion ar

y c al l. 5) U nde r the c ir cum stanc es dis cl ose d by the r ec or d inthi s c as e, w e fi nd n o im pr opr ie ty in the c ourt’ s us e of

the A lle n c harg e. T ha t i t w as not im pr ope r is
ev ide nc ed

by the f ac t tha t the j ur

y de lib er at ed

f or se ve ra l ho ur s a ft er

r ec ei vin g th e ins tr uc tio n. 6) W e find no errors or c um ulation of err ors in this case that m ight su pport appellant’ s claim

that he wa s denied a new tr ial. Appellant’ s convictio ns are,
a c c o r d i n g l y, AFFIR MED.