FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16552 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3
- 0 0 2 2 6
- CR- T- 1 7 M SS
U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s D E M E T R I U S M C L A U G H L I N , a .k .a . D e k e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r30, 2005)
B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.
P E R C U R I A M:We areunpersuaded by McL aughlin’s additional argument, that the district court erre d 1 by imp os inga

c are e r- of fend e r sen tenc epurs ua

nt to th eSe ntenc ingGuide lin e s and e nh anc inghis offe n s e level for

prior convic tions that were ne ither admitted by him nor proven to a jur

y beyond a re asonabledoubt, in violation of United St ates v. B ooker, 543 U .S. ---, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756, 160 L . Ed. 2d 621 (2005). It is well-established that the Six th Amendment does n o t re qu i re a defendant’s prior convictions to be found by the jury
. See Almendarez-Torre s v. United States, 523 U. S. 2 24 , 23 4, 11 8 S. Ct. 12 19 , 12 26 , 14 0 L
. Ed
. 2d 35 0 (1 99 8)
. In B oo ker, theSup remeCourt he ld that “[a]ny

fac t (other than a

prior conviction) which is nece ssary to support a sentence e x cee ding the maximum authorized by the fa cts establis h ed b y a p l ea of guilty or a jury verdic t must be admitted by the def

endant or proved to a

jury beyond a re asonabledoubt.” B ooker, 543 U .S. at ---, 125 S.Ct . at 756 (e mphasis added) . The Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torre s “wa s left undisturbed by

Apprendi, Blake ly , and B ooker”and “a di strict court does not err by rely ing on prior convictions to enhanc e a de fenda nt’s sentenc e.” United States v. Shelto n , 4 0 0 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Cantellano, --- F.3d -
--- , 2005 WL3042675 *6 (11th Cir. No v. 15 , 2 00 5) (obs e rv ingthat “ [w]ehaverepe ate dly re je c te d”argument t

hat B oo ker “ c a lle d into question” Almenda

rez-Torres) ( citing c ases) ; United States v. Orduno-Mire les, 405 F.3d 960, 962 (11th Cir.) (findingno Six th Amendment violation ba sed on 16-leve l enhancement under U .S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (ii) for prior convictions), cer t. denied, 126 S.C t. 223 (2005). Ac cording ly , there was no Six th Amendment violation under B ooker. 2 D em etri us M cL augh l i n, w ho curr en tl y i s s ervi ng concurrentt erm s of l i fe
a nd tw e nty y e a r s ’ i m p r i s onm e nt , a ppe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons , i m pos e d pur s ua ntt o a j ur y ve r di c t , f

orone co u n t o f c ons pi r a c y t o m a nuf a c tur e 50 gr a m s orm or e of
m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U
. S
. C
. §§ 846, 841( a ) ( 1) , a nd 84 1(b)(1)(A )( vi i i ) ( C ou nt1); and o ne coun tof po ss es si on of pseudo ephed rine, know i ng i tw oul d be us e d t o m a nuf a c tur e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n v i ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 8 41 (c )( 2) and 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 (C ou nt2). O n app ea l , M cL augh l i n argues tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rre d on the f ol l ow i ng tw o gr ounds : ( 1) by a l l ow i ng the gove r nm e ntt o p r e s e nte vi de nc e of hi s pr i orc r i m i na l hi s t or y unde rF e d. R
. E vi d. 40 4(b) (“ R u le 40 4(b)”) ; and (2) by denyi ng hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i t t al b a s e d o n in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . A f

te rc a r e f u l r e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m . 1Moreover, at sentenc ing, the district c ourt’s now-errone ous assumption that the Guidelines

were mandatory

was harmless beca

use McL aughlin wa s subject to a statutory mandatory

minimum sentenc e of lifeimprisonment, pursuant to 21 U .S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(A) . Cf. United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n. 1 ( 11th Cir.) (findingharmless Booker error where district c ourt sentenc ed defendant in acc ordanc e with the statutory mandatory

minimum ), cert. d en ied, 126 S. Ct. 196 (2005). Indeed, the district court stated the followingin imposi nga life- term of imprisonment: “The rea sons for imposing the selec ted sentenc e [is] as follows: The sentenceimposed is required by the statute.” Af

ter B ooker, district c ourts remain bound by statutory minimum sentenc es. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1333 n. 10. Thus, we re adily concludethat any

Booker statutory

error in this case w as ha rm le ss b e c a

us e the c ourt c ould no t have imp os e d a le sser sentenc edu eto t hestatut or

y min imum. 3 N or m a l l y , thi s C our tr e vi e w s f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng
on the adm i ss i bi l i ty of e vi dence of un ch ar g ed cond uctun der R ul e 404 (b). S ee U ni t e d St a t e s v. J e r ni ga n, 34 1 F. 3d 12 73 , 12 80 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 03 )
. H ow ever , be c a us e M c L a ughl i n r a i s e s thi s c l ai m f orthe f i r s tt i m e on a ppe a l , w e r e vi e w the i s s u e fo r o nl y pl a i n e r r or . I d. “ A n a ppe l l a t e c our tm a y notc or r e c ta n e r r orthe d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to r a is e in th e d is tr ic tc o u r t u n le s s th e r e is : ( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is pl ai n, and (3) thataf

fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” Id. (quo t at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed).

“ I f a l l thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , a n a ppel l at e c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o n o t i ce a fo r f

e ite d e r ro r, b u to n l y i f (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r ep u t at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3 d 1 29 1, 12 98 (11t h C i r. ) ( qu ot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed), ce rt . deni ed, -- - U
. S
. - - - - , 125 S
. C t . 2935, 162 L
. E d. 2d 866 ( 2005) I d. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcou rt’ s deni al of a m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i t t al d e n o v o , v ie w in g th e f

a c ts a n d d r a w in g a ll in f e r e n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to4

t h e g o v e r n m e n t . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . De s c e n t , 2 9 2 F
. 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. To
a f f ir m th e d e n ia l o f

a F e d . R . C r im . P . 2 9 m o tio n , w e n e e d d e te r m in e o n ly th a t a
re as o n ab le fa ct fin d e r c o u ld co n clu d e th at th e e v id en ce es tab li sh ed th e d ef en d an t’ s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt
. I d. T he j ur y i s f r e e t o c hoose b et w een ora m ong
r e a s ona bl e c onc l us i ons t o be dr a w n f r om the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d d u ri ng tr i a l , a nd th e c o u r t m u s t a c c e p t th e ju r y ’s r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s a n d c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n s . U n ite d S ta te s v . S a n c h e z , 7 2 2 F .2 d 1 5 0 1 , 1 5 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 )
. T he rel ev antf

a c t s a r e s tr a i ght f

or w a r d. O n J une 11, 2003, M c L a ughl i n, c oc ons pi r a t or s J a m e s H ow z e a nd T e r e s a S ut t on, a nd tw o othe r s w e r e i ndi c t e d f or
c ons pi r i ng t o m a nuf

a c tur e f i f ty gr a m s orm or e of

m e tha m p h e t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 846 a nd 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i i ) , a nd r e l a t ed p o ss e s s i on- w i th- i nt e nt - t odi s tr i but e c ha r ge s . T he i ndi c tm e nta l s o i nc l u d ed a f or f e i tur e c ount . S ut t on a nd H ow z e e nt e r e d gui l ty pl e a s t o the c ons pi r a c y co u n t an d M c L a ughl i n pr oc e e de d t o a j ur y tr i a l
. S ut t on t e s t i f

i e d a s a gove r nm e ntw i tne s s a ga i ns tM c L a ughl i n. P r i ort o tr i a l , the gove r nm e nts ubm i t t ed a n I nf or m a t i on a nd N ot i c e of pr i or
co n v icti o n s a n d a N o ti ce o f I n ten t t o in tro d u ce ev id en ce at trial o f M cL au g h li n ’s pri or conv i ct i on s, pu rs uantt o F ed. R
. E vi d. 40 4(b). T he Inform at i on st at ed that M cL augh l i n w as subj ec tt o i ncre as ed penal t i es an d a st atut ory m andat ory
m i ni m um se nt ence , pu rs uantt o 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 41 (b), based on hi s pri or st at e c ou rt
co n v icti o n o n S ept em ber 9, 20 02 , for posse ss i ng and sel l i ng coca i ne. T he N ot i ce5

o f I n te n t in d ic a te d th a t M c L a u g h lin ’s p r io rd r u g c o n v ic tio n w a s e v id e n c e o f h is k n o w le d g e a n d in te n t t o c o m m i t th e c h a r g e s a t is s u e . M c L a u g h lin d id n o t o b je c t to
o ro th e r w is e o p p o s e e ith e rth e I n f o r m a tio n o rth e N o tic e o f I n te n t. T h e g o v e r n m e n ts u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a s e c o n d p r e - t r i a l N o t i c e o f I n te n t, th is t i m e s pe c i f

y i ng both ( 1) the pr i orc onvi c t i on r e f e r e nc e d i n the f

i r s tN ot i c e , a nd ( 2) evi dence o f M cL augh l i n’ s pri or di stri bu t i on of cocai ne t o an u nd er cover offi ce r. A s t o t he l att er , i n i t s N ot i ce of Int ent , the g o v er n m en tar gu ed thatthe evi dence
w as “ i next ri cabl y l i nk ed” t o the charges i n t he i nd i ctm entand sho ul d b e a dm i t t ed i nde pe nde ntof

R ul e 404( b)
. A l t e r na t i ve l y , the governm e nta r gue d the e vi de nc e of p r io rd is tr ib u tio n s to a n u n d e r c o v e ro f f ic e rw a s o th e r w is e a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 404( b)
. A s w i th the f

i r s tN ot i c e of

I nt e n t , M cL au g h l i n di d notobj e c tt o the s e c ond N o tic e o f

I n te n t. A ttri al , S ut t on t es t i fi ed that , i n ear l y J ul y 200 2, M cL augh l i n cam e t o h er
r e s id e n c e in o r d e rto h e lp h e rm o v e a g r e e n ta n ko f a n h y d r o u s a m m o n ia , w h ic h is
c om m onl y us e d t o m a nufact u re m e tha m phe t a m i ne . T he y t ook the t a nk t o the

“ G a t orFa r m, ” w he r e M c La ug hl i n l i ve d a nd w he r e H ow z e s ome t i m es
m a n u f a c tu r e d m e th a m p h e ta m in e . S u b s e q u e n tly , o n J u ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , M c L a u g h lin
re turned t o S ut to n ’s h om e, and she as ked h i m t o com e bac k l at ert o h el p h er tr a ns por ts om e i t e m s tha tw e r e be i ng de l i ve r e d t o he r . T h ese i t e m s c ons i s t e d of lith iu m b a t t e r i e s , w h ic h w e r e s tr ip p e d , a n d S u d a f e d p ills , w h ic h w e r e c ru s h e d , a ll f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

c o n v e r tin g th e m a te r ia ls in to m e th a m p h e ta m in e .6

M c L a u g h lin r e tu r n e d to S u tto n ’s r e s id e n c e , a t w h ic h p o in t th e y d e c id e d “to ta k e th e s tu f

f o u t to a n o th e rp e r s o n ’s h o u s e to b e m a n u f a c tu r e d in to
m e th[ a m phe t a m i ne ]
. ” M c L a ughl i n a nd S ut t on then l o ad ed “ the s tuf f ” i nt o the back of the truck and l ef t . A cc ordi ng t o S ut t on , M cL au g h li n had sm ok ed
m etham ph et am i ne previ ou sl y a nd t ol d her thathe w ant ed t o m anufacture
m etham ph et am i ne i n o rder to ea rn m on ey thatw ou l d enabl e hi m t o h i re an
a t t or ne y t o r e s ol ve s om e c ha r ge s the n pe ndi ng a ga i ns thi m . M c L a ughl i n ha d not pr e vi ous l y s ol d m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i th S ut t on, buts he be l i e ve d tha t he ha d done
so on hi s ow n. D uri ng her t es t i m on y, S ut t on st at ed th at sh e h ad been a drug add i ct f o rth r e e a n d o n e - h a lf

y e a r s . I n a ddi t i on t o S ut t on’ s t e s t i m ony , the g o v ernm e ntpr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of three l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs w ho t oo k p ar ti n t he i nv es t i gat i on and surveil la nce of Sut t on ’ s ho us e on J ul y 16 , 20 02
. D e t e c t i ve M i c ha e l M i l ke , a na r c ot i cs offi ce r
w i th th e P as co C ou nt y S heri ff’ s O ff i ce (“ P C S O ”) , t es t i fi ed that , base d o n an
a nony m ous t i p tha tm e tha m phe t a m i ne w a s be i ng s ol d f r om S u t t o n ’ s r e s i de nc e , he
c o n d u c t e d s u r v e illa n c e o f th e p r e m is e s o n th a t d a y . H e o b s e r v e d M c L a u g h lin
arri ve on the prem i se s an d back up hi s pi ck-up t ruck t o t he re arof the re si dence. D e t e c t i ve M i l e the n obs e r ve d thr e e pe opl e ( l at er i d e nt i f i e d a s S ut t on, M c L a ughl i n, and a thi rd i nd i vi du al ) l oadi ng the bed o f the truck w it h b la ck bags “ i n a very f r a n t i c p a c e .” H e n o tic e d th a t o n e p e r s o n a p p e a r e d to b e s e r v in g a s a lo o k o u t.Mc L a ughlin did obje c t to Th omp so n’ s su bs e qu e nt t e sti mony

that Mc L a

ughlin “ a c tually 2 sepa rate d .
. . my

na rc oti c s f ro m th ere st o f t

he m - - - the c rac k that he ha d so he c ould s e ll m ejus t the right amount,” as irreleva nt to the overall line of testimony . Th i s o b j ection wa s overr

uled. McL aughlin doe s n ot a

rgue , a nd wedo no t c on str

ue , th ere le va

nc y ob je c tio n w a s re late d to Thompson’s earlier testimony that McL aughlin previously sold him crack c ocaine
. 7 A fter th e i nd i vi du al s goti nt o t he truck and d rove aw ay , M i l ke no t i fi ed ot her offi ce rs of the vehi cl e’ s depar ture. D e t e c t i ve P a ul T h o m p s on, a nothe rP S C O of f i c e ri nvol ve d i n the i nve s t i g a t i o n a n d w o r k i n g u n d e r c o v e r , a l s o o b s e r v e d th e tru c k l e a v i n g t he
ca m p g ro u n d s. H e r ec o g n ized M cL au g h li n , w h o w a s n o t o n e o f th e in v es ti g atio n ’s t ar get s at that po i nt , as the dri ver. In the course of anoth er u n derc ov er i nve s t i g a t i o n , w h i c h t o o k p l a c e a tth e e n d o f 2 0 0 1 a n d b e g i n n i n g o f 2 0 02, D et ec t i ve T ho m pson had p urchas ed cr ac k cocai ne fr o m M cL augh l i n o n sever al
o ccasi o n s. N o t ab l y, w h e n T h o m p so n t est i fi ed ab o u tth e p ri o r crack sal es, M c L a ughl i n di d notobj e c t . D e t e c t i ve T hom ps on a l so r e c ogni z e d a s e c ond 2 i nd i vi du al (S ut t on ) i n th e p i ckup truck. S ut t on had b ee n i dent i fi ed by the C I a s b e in g in v o lv e d in th e m a n u f a c tu r e a n d s a le o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e . D uri ng a subsequent vehi cl e st op , M cL augh l i n a nd S ut t on gave fa lse n am es
a nd M cL au g h l i n di d notha ve a dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e . M c L a ughl i n w a s a r r e s t e d f or dr i vi ng w i thouta l i c e ns e a nd gi vi ng a f a l s e na m e , a nd S ut t on w a s a r r est e d f or prov i di ng a f

al se nam e. A ft erthe arre st s, the offi ce rs re co v er ed fr om the truck-bed i t e m s a nd s ubs t a nc e s us e d t o m a nuf a c tur e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i nc l udi ng fi v e-g a l l on b u c k e ts , m u r ia tr ic a c id , d r a in o p e n e rc o n ta in in g s u lf u r ic a c id , c a m p f

u e l, ta b le s a lt,8

l i t hi um b a t t e r i e s , tw o b o x e s o f Su d a f e d p i l l s , a n d tw o b a g s o f g r o u nd p s e u d o e p h e d r in e p ills . I n a p o s t- a r r e s t c o n v e r s a tio n w ith a C I , M c L a u g h lin
a d v is e d th e C I o f

w h e r e a g r e e n ta n k - - a n h y d r o u s a m m o n ia , c o m m o n ly u s e d to
m a nuf a c tur e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i s s t or e d i n l a r ge gr e e n orgr e y t a nks - - c oul d be f o u n d a n d o f

h o w to f

in d a th ir d in d iv id u a l, “F a s t E d d ie ” ( c o - d e f e n d a n tH o w z e )
. D u r in g th e d e f

e n s e c a s e - in
- c h ie f

, M c L a u g h lin te s tif

ie d o n h i s o w n b e h a lf and p re se nt ed the t es t i m on y of H ow ze . H ow ze st at ed thathe had n ever
m a n u f a c tu r e d m e th a m p h e ta m in e w ith M c L a u g h lin , h a d n e v e rs e e n M c L a u g h lin
e n g a g e i n d ru g a c t i v i t y , a n d h a d n o ts e e n Mc L a u g h l i n wi th a n a m m o n i a t a n k
. He al so sa i d t hathe (H ow ze ) a nd S ut t on had m anufactured m eth am p h etam i ne t og ether
n u m e r o u s tim e s . D u r in g h is te s tim o n y , M c L a u g h lin c la im e d th a t h e w a s a t S u tto n ’s h o m e to
se e s om ebod y abo utca r a nd m ot orcy cl e r epai rs . M cL augh l i n st at ed thathe agree d t o g i ve S ut t on a r i de t o a nearby c i ty but , atthe t i m e he w as st op ped, w as un aw ar e
o f th e i t em s w hi ch S ut t on had p l ac ed i n t he back of hi s truck. M cL augh l i n sai d, “I
se ll drug s m ys el f, so I s ho ul d k no w w hata drug t ra nsac t i on l oo ks l i ke” i n sup po rt of hi s c l a i m tha the w a s noti nvol ve d i n the J ul y 1 6 , 2002 m e tha m phe t a m i ne
s c h e m e w ith w h ic h h e w a s c h a r g e d
. A tthe c l os e o f t ri a l , M c L a ughl i n r e ne w e d hi s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof
ac q u it t al , w hi ch w as agai n d eni ed. T he j ury f ou nd M cL augh l i n g ui l ty a s c harged
a nd r e tur ne d a s pe c i a l ve r di c tf i ndi ng hi m r e s pons i bl e f orm or e tha n 50 gr a m s ofThe PSIrec ommended a ba se off ense le vel of 32, pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 3D1.2(b) , 3 beca use the off

ense involved morethan 50 grams but less than 150 grams of me thamphetamine. The PSIalso stated that McL aughlin was subject to a f ive-leve l enhan ce ment as a c are er of fender, pursuant to § 4B 1.1, and a ma ndatory statutory m i n i mum s en tenceof life imprisonment for the conspirac y

count, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1) (A) a nd 851(b). Rul e40 4 p ro vide s, int e r alia : 4 (b ) O ther C rime s, Wro ng s, or A c ts. —Evide nc eof oth e r c rime s, wron g s, or

a c ts i s n ot admi ssibleto p ro vethec ha rac te r o f a pers on

in order to show action in confor mity therewith. It may , however, be a dm i s s ib l ef

o r o th e r p ur p o s e s , s u c ha s p ro o f o f

m o t i v e , o p p o rtun i ty, intent, prepa

ration, pl an, knowledge , identity , or absence of mistake or ac cident, provide d that upon reque st by the ac cused, the prose cution

in a c rimin a l c a sesh a ll p ro videre a so na bleno tic ein advanc e of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on g oo d caus esh own, of

theg e neral natureof

any su c h e vide nc eit int e nd s to int

ro du c eat trial. 9 m etham ph et am i ne. P ursuantt o t he re co m m endat i on of the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport ( “ P S I” ), and o ver M cL augh l i n’ s obj ec t i on s, the di stri ctcourt
s e n te n c e d M c L a u g h lin t o c o n c u r r e n t s e n te n c e s o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t o n C o u n t 1
a nd 20 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nton C ount2. T hi s a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. 3 F irst, M c L a u g h li n ch allen g es th e a d m issio n o f D etec ti v e T h o m p so n ’s t e s t i m ony tha tM c L a ughl i n pr e vi ous l y s ol d hi m c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd w a s outon bond fol l ow i ng drug char ges, as w ell a s th e a rr es t i ng offi ce r’ s s t at em entthathe veri fi ed M c L a ughl i n’ s i de nt i ty us i ng l a w e nf o rcem e ntda t a ba s e s . M c L a ughl i n c ont e nds thi s test i m on y w as i m prop erR ul e 404 (b) e vi dence. A gai n, M cL augh l i n m akes 4 th is c la im f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l, h a v in g f a ile d to o b

je c t in t h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t,
e i the rpr i ort o tr i a l w he n the gove r nm e ntf i l e d i t s N ot i c e a nd I nf

or m a t i on ordur i ng D e te c tiv e T h o m p s o n ’s o rth e a r r e s tin g o f f ic e r ’s te s tim o n y .10

R ul e 404( b) pe r m i t s t he a dm i s s i on of pr i or - ba d- a c t s e vi de nc e t o s how
m ot i ve , pr e pa r a t i on, know l e dge , a nd i nt en t , a s w e l l a s a n ongoi ng s c he m e orpl a n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L ehder-Ri vas, 95 5 F
. 2d 15 10 , 15 15 -16 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r os s , 928 F
. 2d 10 3 0 , 1047- 48 ( 11th C i r . 1991)
. I n r e vi e w i ng 40 4(b) deci si on s, w e app l y athree -par tt es tfor a dm i ss i bi l i ty o f s uch evi dence: (1) t he e vi de nc e mus tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nd a nt ’ s c ha ra ct er ; ( 2) the r e m us tbe s uf

f i c i e ntpr oof

s o tha ta j ur y c oul d f i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt
c o m m itte d th e e x tr in s ic a c t; a n d ( 3 ) th e e v id e n c e m u s t h a v e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e th a t is nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by undue pr e j udi c e . S e e U ni t ed S t a t e s v. J e r ni ga n, 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. T he e vi de nc e of

M c L a ughl i n’ s pr i ordru g arrest s w a s r e l e va ntt o the i s s ue of hi s s t a t e of

m i nd w i t h resp ect t o the c ha r ge d of f e ns e s . “ O ne of

the e l e m e nt s of conspi ra cy thatthe prosecut i on m ustes t abl i sh beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bti s a n i nt e nt i on t o f

u rt h e rthe purpos e s of

the c ons pi r a c y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C os t a , 947 F
. 2d 91 9, 92 5 (11 th C ir. 1 99 1). W hen a defendantchar ged w i th con spi ra cy ent er s a pl eaof no tgu i l ty, as i n t hi s c as e, h e m akes i nt enta m at er i al i ss ue i n t he ca se . S ee i d. ; U ni t ed S t at es v. D el gado , 56 F
. 3d 13 57 , 13 65 (11t h C ir. 199 5). M c L a ughl i n di d not“ affi rm at i ve l y t a ke the i s s ue of i nt e ntoutof

c ont e nt i on by
s t i pul a t i ng tha t[ he ] pos s e s s e d the r e qui s i t e i nt en t , ” C os t a , 947 F
. 2d a t925. Indeed, hi s th eo ry o f d ef ense w as thathe w as i n t he w rong pl ac e a tthe w rong t i m e. M o r e o v e r , th e g o v e r n m e n t p r e s e n te d s u f f i c i e n t e v id e n c e f

r o m w h ic h a ju r y c o u ldFor this same rea son, we c annot say that any prejudiceoutweighed the probative value 5 of the c halleng ed testimony
. Indeed, there w as no pre judice in light of

McL aughlin’s own testimony th at h e sold crack coc aine to De tective Thompson and others on numerous oc casions and had previously

been c onvicted of se lling crack c ocaine
. 11 f i nd tha tM c L a ughl i n c om m i t t e d the pr i ordrug cri m es f orw hi c h he w a s a r r e s t e d. I nde e d, dur i ng hi s ow n t e s t i m ony M c L a ughl i n di d notdi s put e the pr i ordrug
conv i c t i on s . I n s ho r t , w e c a n f i nd no pl a i n e r r ori n the a dmi s s i on of the di s pu t ed 5 te s tim o n y . W e a re li kew i se un pers uaded b y M cL augh l i n’ s c hal l enge t o t he suff i ci ency
o f th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c o n v ic tio n s . V ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t , t h e r e w a s a b u n d a n t e v id e n c e to s u s ta in th e v e r d ic t. I n a d d itio n to
c o - c o n s p ir a to rS u tto n ’s te s tim o n y , in c lu d in g th a t M c L a u g h lin a g r e e d to g o w ith he rt o H ow z e ’ s r e s i de nc e t o m a nuf a c tur e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , the gove r nm e nt pres ent ed th e t es t i m on y of three l aw -e nforcement off i ce rs w ho ob se rved M c L a u g h lin ’s a c tiv itie s o n J u ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 2
. T h e o f f ic e r s d e s c r ib e d h o w M c L a u g h lin
w a s a r r e s t e d , a f

t e rg i v i n g a f

a l s e n a me , w h i l e dr i v i n g a v e h i c l e c o n t a i n i n g i t e ms
com m on l y use d t o m anufacture m etham ph et am i ne, i ncl ud i ng pseudo ep h edri ne. A l tho ug h M cL augh l i n t es t i fi ed thathe w as un aw ar e of t h e it em s i n t he truck bed and t hathe w as no tgu i l ty of the cr i m es char ged, and H ow ze t es t i fi ed thathe w as
u n a w a r e o f M c L a u g h lin ’s p a r tic ip a tio n in th e c r im e , th e ju r y w a s e n title d to di s be l i e ve a l l orpor t i ons of the i rt e s t i m ony . S e e C ha s t a i n, 198 F
. 3d a t1351.12

S i m i l ar l y, tho ug h h e a rgues thatS ut t on ’ s t es t i m on y w as un re l i abl e, i tw as noti nc r e di bl e a s a m a t t e rof l a w , a nd t h e j u ry w a s e nt i t l e d t o be l i e ve he r . I d. T e s tim o n y is in c r e d ib le a s a m a tte ro f la w o n ly w h e n it is “u n b e lie v a b le o n its f a c e ” a n d r e la te s to “f

a c ts th a t [ th e w itn e s s ] p h y s ic a lly c o u ld n o t h a v e p o s s ib ly ob served or event s thatcoul d n othave occurre d u nd erthe l aw s of nature. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F
. 3d 1314, 1325 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on a nd
c ita tio n o m itte d ) . O u rr e v ie w o f th e tr ia l tr a n s c r ip t o f

S u tt o n ’ s t e s tim o n y r e v e a ls tha tthe t e s t i m ony doe s notm e e tthi s hi gh s t a nda r d. B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e a ff i rm M cL augh l i n’ s c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.