FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 15556 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 1 0 0 2 1 - C R - K MM 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 J E R M A I N E L E S L I E T A T U M , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 7, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J e rm a in e L e s lie T a tu m ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . O n appe a l , T a tum a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of hi s pr i or pos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne unde rR ul e 404( b) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e a nd by r e f us i ng t o gi ve hi s r e que s t e d j ury i ns truc t i on on the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e of si m pl e posse ss i on . T atum al so chal l enges the suff i ci encyof the evi dence s u p p o rt i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. A f te rK e y W e s t P o lic e o f

f ic e r s a rr e s te d T a tu m o n a n o u ts ta n d in g w a rr a n t, T a tu m d ir e c te d th e m to h is c a r , w h ic h w a s p a rk e d in aH o lid a y I n n P a rk in g lo t. T atu m g av e a n o ff

icerp er m issio n to se ar ch th e c aran d sa idto lo o kin a W en d y’s ba g i n the ba c k s e a t . T he pol i c e f ound a10. 1- gr a m c r a c k c oc a i ne “ c ooki e ” i ns i de th e b ag . C ra ck co ca in e r es idu e w as fo u n d in th e f ro n t d riv er ’s an d p as se n g er ’s s e a t s . T a tum a l s o t ol d the of f i c e rtha tthe r e s houl d be about$5, 000 i n aba g i n the tru n ko f th e c a r , a n d th e p o l i c e r e c o v e r e d aB u r g e rKi n g b a g c o n t a i n i n g $ 4 , 1 1 9 . Of th e $ 4 ,1 1 9 , m o re th an h alf o f th e m o n ey w as in 2 0 -d o ll arb il ls. O v erT atu m ’s obj ec t i on , the go vernm enti ntrodu ce d evi dence that , l es s than tw o m on ths before T atum ’ s arr es t , T atum l ed K eyW es tP ol i ce offi ce rs t o a l ocat i on behi nd an ab a n d o n e d h o u s e w h e r e th e p o lic e r e c o v e r e d 1 1 g r a m s , o rth r e e - q u a rte r s o f ab ig c o o k ie , o f

c r a c kc o c a in e b e lo n g in g to T a tu m .Acc ordingto the testimony , no money was re covered. Rather , the witness testified that 1 the crack c ookie was a

bout $2,200 worth of narcotics. 3 I. R u l e 404 (b ) e vi d en ce T a tum a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by a l l ow i ng the g o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e e v id e n c e , u n d e rF e d .R .E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) , th a t h e le d o f f ic e r s to a n aba ndone d hous e f

r om w hi c h he r e tr i e ve d 11 gr a m s of c oc a i ne a nd as um of m on ey . H e a ss ert s thatthi s e vi dence w as no tprob at i ve of any i ss ue i n the ca se ,

1 bu tra ther s ub st ant i al l y pre j ud i ce d h i s def

ense by do ub l i ng the am ou ntof cr ac k that th e ju ry c o u ld c o n s id e rin d e te rm in in g h is in te n t. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s a dm i s s i on of e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 404( b) f or abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. M atthew s, 43 1 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), pet . for c ert . fi l ed, (A pr. 24 , 20 06 ) ( N o. 05 -135 5). R ul e 404 (b) provi des tha t“ [ e ] vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove the ch aract er o f a p erso n i n o rd er t o sh o w act i o n i n co n fo rm i ty th erew i th . Itm ay, h o w ev er, b e ad m i ssi b l e fo r o th er p u rp o ses, su ch as p ro o f o f m o t i v e, o p p o rtu n i ty, in te n t, p r e p a r a tio n , p la n , k n o w le d g e . . . .” F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) . T h e a d m is s ib ility o f R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e is g o v e rn e d b y th e f o llo w in g te s t: F i r s t , the e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; S e c ond, the a c tm us tbe e s t abl i s he d by suff i ci entproo f t o p erm i ta j ury f i nd i ng thatthe defendantcom m i tt edTatum do e s n ot a

rgueon a pp e al th at th erewa s in su ff ic ient pro of

of thi s ac t. 2 4 the e xtr i ns i c a c t ; T hi r d, the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e m us tnot be subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce , and the evi dence m us tm e e tthe othe rr e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 403. M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d a t1310- 11 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d 1357, 13 65 (11th C i r. 19 95 )) . “ A si m i l ari ty b etw een th e o th er actan d a ch arg ed o ffen se w ill m a k e th e o th e ro f

f e n s e h ig h ly p r o b a tiv e w ith r e g a r d to ad e f e n d a n t’s in te n t in the charged offe nse. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z, 42 6 F . 3d 13 44 , 13 54 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). I n U n ite d S ta te s v . B u tle r , w e h e ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d i scret i o n i n ad m i tt i n g a p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r p o ssessi o n o f co cai n e fo r th e p u rp o se of pr ovi ng i nt e nta ga i ns tade f e nda ntc ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ut l e r , 102 F . 3d 1191, 1195- 96 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . W e r e a s one d “ tha tthe l ogi c a l e xt e ns i on of ourc urr e nt j ur i s prude nc e i s t o a dm i te vi de nc e of pr i orpe r s ona l drug us e t o pr ove i nt e nti n a s ubs e que ntpr os e c ut i on f ordi s tr i but i on of

na r c ot i c s . ” I d. a t1196. T a tum puthi s i nt e nta ti s s ue by a r gui ng tha the pos s e s s e d c r a c k c oc a i ne , but di d notdo s o w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . L e s s tha n tw o m onths be f or e hi s a rr e s ton the i ns t a ntc ha r ge , T a tum l e d of f i c e r s t o hi s hi dde n s t a s h of c r a c k c oc a i ne . T he 2 c r a c k c oc a i ne pos s e s s e d by T a tum on tha toc c a s i on goe s be y ond e vi de nc e of pr i or5

pers on al drug use, as the l ar ge am ou ntof cr ac k cocai ne and i t s hi dd en l ocat i on ar e, a c c o r d in g to tr ia l te s tim o n y , c o n s is te n t w ith d is tr ib u tio n a n d n o t p e r s o n a l u s e . T hus , thi s e vi de nc e i s a dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . S e e i d. a t1195- 96; cf . U ni t ed S t at es v. G re en, 40 F . 3d 11 67 , 11 74 -75 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( ho l di ng that a rr e s t f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

ad is tr ib u tab le a m o u n t o f c o c a in e b a s e w a s a d m is s ib le u n d er 4 0 4 (b ) t o sh o w i n t en tas t o d efen d an tch arg ed w i th co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e ) . I n a ddi t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtga ve l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i ons both pr i ort o the t e s t i m ony a nd w he n c ha r gi ng the j ury , the r e by r e duc i ng the r i s k of

undue pr e

j udi c e . R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d a t1354. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of T a tum ’ s pr i or po ss es si on of cr ac k cocai ne. I I . Ju r y i n s t r u c t i on T a tum a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o gi ve hi s r equest ed j ury i nstruct i on on the l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e of posse ss i on , w hi ch depri ved h i m of hi s abi l i ty t o p roperl y def end h i s c as e. W e r evi ew the di stri ct court ’ s r ef

usal t o g i ve a propo se d j ury i nstruct i on for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. K l opf

, 423 F . 3d 1228, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1931 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . “A n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n m a y o c c u rw h e r e th e e v id e n c e w o u ld p e rm it a ra t i on al j ury t o fi nd the defendantgu i l ty of the l es se r off ense and n otthe great er . ”6

U ni t ed S t at es v. L ee , 68 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 73 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). A “ ‘ l es se r- i ncl ud ed of f e ns e i ns truc t i on i s onl y pr ope rw he r e the c ha r ge d gr e a t e rof f e ns e r e qui r e s the j ury t o f i nd adi s put e d f

a c tua l e l e m e ntw hi c h i s notr e qui r e d f orc onvi c t i on of

the l es se r- i ncl ud ed offens e. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R og er s, 50 4 F . 2d 10 79 , 10 84 (5th C i r. 1974) ( quot i ng S a ns one v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 380 U . S . 343, 350, 85 S . C t . 1004, 1009, 1 3 L. Ed . 2 d 8 8 2 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ) . Th e i s s u e o f i n t e n ti s n o t“ tru l y d i s p u t e d ” “ [ a ] b s e n ts o me e vi de nc e t o c ount e r[ a ] s tr ong i nf e r e nc e of i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . ” I d. W he the rthe d e f e n s e p r o d u c e d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u s ta in ap a rtic u la rin s tru c tio n is g e n e r a lly aque s t i on of

l aw w hi c h w e r e vi e w de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). I n L e e , w e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng al e s s e r - i nc l ude d of

f e ns e i ns truc t i on on s i m pl e pos s e s s i on f orade f e nda ntf ound w ith 1 6 .3 8 g r a m s o f

c r a c kc o c a in e in h is p o c k e t. L e e , 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 3 . W e r e a s one d tha t , ba s e d on e vi de nc e tha ts a l e s t o us e r s ge ne r a l l y oc c urr e d i n t e nths of gr a m s a nd tha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s l i s t e d a s adi s tr i but ori n the r e c or ds of ape r s on w ho supp l i ed di stri bu t ors and no tuser s, com bi ned w i th the l ac k o f e vi dence r e g a r d in g p e r s o n a l u s e , aju ry c o u ld n o t h a v e r a tio n a lly f o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty o f p o s s e s s io n b u t a c q u itte d th e d e f e n d a n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . I d .7

T h is c a s e is s im ila rto L e e in th a t th e r e is s tr o n g e v id e n c e o f an in te n t to di stri bu t e and no evi dence thatT atum pers on al l y use d cra ck cocai ne. O ff i ce rs r e c o v e r e d ac r a c kc o c a in e “c o o k ie ” w e ig h in g 1 0 .1 g r a m s f r o m T a tu m ’s c a r . D et ec t i ve C oh ens t es t i fi ed attri al thatusual l y one “ rock, ” or abo uton e- t enth o f a gram of cr ac k cocai ne, w as sm ok ed aton e t i m e. H e a l so t es t i fi ed thata t en-gram coca i ne cook i e c on si st ed of abou t10 0 o r 200 rocks a nd , on ce cuti nt o i nd i vi du al p ie c e s , c o u ld s e ll f

o rab o u t $ 2 ,0 0 0 to ta l. C o h e n s e x p la in e d th a t ate n - g r a m c o o k ie w oul d de f

i ni t e l y i ndi c a t e tha ts om e one w a s di s tr i but i ng be c aus e of the w e i ghta nd th e a m o u n t o f

m o n e y th e y c o u ld m a k e o n th a t c r a c ka t th e s tr e e t- le v e l w h o le s a le p ri ce. L ess th an tw o m o n th s earl i er, T atu m l ed o ffi cers t o an ab an d o n ed h o u se w he r e a n 11- gr a m c ooki e of c r a c k c oc a i ne w a s hi dde n. T he l oc a t i on of both of th e s e c o o k ie s w a s c o n s is te n t w ith C o h e n s ’s te s tim o n y th a t, in h is e x p e r ie n c e , a d ru g d e a le rn e v e rc a rr ie d a r o u n d aw h o le c o o k ie w ith th e m , b u t w o u ld h id e th e ir cook i e s up pl y. O ff

i ce rs al so re covered $4,119 i n a B urger K i ng bag, and m ore th a n h a lf o f th e m o n e y w a s in 2 0 - d o lla rb ills . C o h e n s te s tif ie d th a t, in h is e xpe r i e nc e , drug pur c ha s e s w e r e us ua l l y tr a ns a c t e d w i th 20- dol l a rbi l l s . B a s e d on th e a m o u n t o f

c o c a in e a n d th e 1 0 a n d 2 0 - d o llarb ills , C o h e n s w o u ld b e lie v e th a t a pe r s on w ho ha d at e n- gr a m c r a c k c oc a i ne c ooki e a nd $4, 119 tha tc ons i s t e d of m o s tly 1 0 a n d 2 0 - d o lla rb ills w as a dea l er .8

T w o o f f ic e r s te s tif

ie d th a t, w h e n th e y e n c o u n te r e d T a tu m o n th e d a y o f h is a rr e s ta nd the da y he l e d of f i c e r s t o the aba ndone d hous e , he di d notappe a rt o be unde rthe i nf

l ue nc e of c r a c k c oc a i ne . O f

f i c e r s f ound tw o c r a c k c oc a i ne c ooki e s but no paraph ernal i a thatw ou l d b e use d t o i ng es tcr ac k i n the room w here T atum w as a rr e s t e d. O ne of

f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha the ne ve rc a m e a c r os s s om e one i n pos s e s s i on of t e n gr a m s of

c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd l a r ge a m ount s of m one y tha tw a s m e r e l y us i ng c r a c k . A l tho ug h there i s no d i re ctevi dence thatT atum sol d cra ck cocai ne, evi dence thatT atum po ss es se d a l ar ge am ou ntof cr ac k cocai ne on tw o o cc as i on s, com bi ned w i th the l a r ge a m ountof c a s h i n s m a l l de nom i na t i ons i n hi s c a r , pr ovi de s s tr ong ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of T atum ’ s i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ra ck cocai ne. In thi s c as e, th e r e is n o e v id e n c e o f

T a tu m ’s p e r s o n a l u s e o f th e d ru g a n d n o e v id e n c e “to c o u n te rth e s tr o n g in f

e r e n c e o f in te n t to d is tr ib u te .” R o g e r s , 5 0 4 F .2 d a t 1 0 8 4 . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n ref usi ng t o g i ve an in s tru c tio n o n th e le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f p o s s e s s io n . II I. S u ff i ci en cy of th e e vi d en ce T a tum a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n hi s c onvi c t i on b e c au s e th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v id e d in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

a n in te n t to d is tr ib u te . H e c o n t e n d s th a tg o v e rn me n tw i tn e s s e s a c k n o w l e d g e d th a tp o s s e s s i o n o f t e n g r a ms9

w a s n o t n e c e s s a r ily in c o n s is te n t w ith p e r s o n a l u s e , a s it w o u ld b e ate n - d a y s u p p ly f ors om e one w ho us e d c r a c k t e n t i m e s ada y . T a tum f urthe rar gue s tha t , a l though i nt entm aybe i nferre d from qu ant i ty, i f the j ury m ade s uch an i nfer ence , i tw as unc l e a rw he the rthe j ury di d s o ba s e d on the drugs i n thi s c a s e orba s e d on the 11 gr a m s r e c ove r e d pr e vi ous l y . T a tum c ont e nds tha t , i n thi s c a s e , the r e w e r e no s c a l e s , s m a l l ba gs , pr e pa r a t i on orc ooki ng m a t e r i a l s , orothe re vi de nc e s ugge s t i ve o f d i stri b u t i o n , i n cl u d i n g n o ev i d en ce o f h i s p art i ci p at i o n i n d ru g tran sact i o n s. W e r e v ie w th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e d e n o v o , “v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 405 F . 3d 1260, 1269 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e a l s o m a ke a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd cred i b i l i ty ch o i ces i n fav o r o f th e g o v ern m en tan d th e j u ry’ s v erd i ct . Id . W e m u st af fi rm “ un l es s, un der no reas on abl e c on struct i on of the evi dence, coul d the j ury h a v e f o u n d th e [ d e f

e n d a n t] g u ilty b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” I d . B a s e d o n th e c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f in te n t d is c u s s e d w ith r e g a r d to T a tu m ’s r e q u e s te d ju ry in s tru c tio n , th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u s ta in T a tum ’ s c onvi c t i on. A s t o T a tum ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe j ury m i ghtha ve us e d the p r i o rb a d a c te v i d e n c e i n a n i m p e rm i s s i b l e m a n n e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtg a v e two l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i ons on the us e of tha te vi de nc e a nd the j ury i s pr e s um e d t o f ol l ow th e c o u rt’s in s tru c tio n s . R a m ir e z , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 2 .10

In li g h t o f th e f

o re g o in g , w e f

in d n o ab u se o f d iscr etio n in th e d istrict co u rt’s ru lin g s a n d h o ld th a t T a tu m ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s s u p p o rte d b y s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . AF F I RME D.