FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUB LISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1088 4 Non-Argum ent C al en da

r

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 1: 09-c r–0024 1-W SD-ECS-6
UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A,
Pla int iff-Appe lle e,
ve rsus MAM ADOU SADIO B ARR Y, De fend ant-Appe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for theNorth ern Dist

ric t of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J uly 9, 2 012) Be fore T JOFLAT, EDM ONDSON a nd AN DER SON, C irc uit

Jud ge s. PER C URIAM : Ma m ad ou Sa dio Ba

rry a ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion

for fel ony

c opy rightinfrin ge m ent, i n vi olatio n of 17 U.S.C . § 5 06(a ), 18 U. S.C. §§ 2 319(a ), (b)(1) and

(2). B arry

argue s th at

the dis tric t c ourt e rred i n de ny inghis m oti on t o su ppre ss thre e inc rim inatin g st at em ents t hat he m ad e to l awe nforce m ent, a nd i n ruli ng t

hat
ce rta in e vid en ce of hi s pri or si m ila r ac ts w as a dm iss ibl e, pursu ant t o Fed. R.C rim .P. 404 (b).

I. M otion to Suppre ss I ncr im inating State m ents Ba rry argue s th at

thre e sta te m ents t hat hem ad e to l awe nforce m ent sh oul d have be en sup pres se d be ca

use the y we re i nvolunt ari ly

m ad e. He argue s th at

the pol ic e pres en ce prior t o e ac h of hi s inte rvie ws c reate d a n intimidatin g e nvi ronm ent, in whic h he be lie ve d th at

he ha d no a lte rnat ive but to m ak e inc rim inatin g sta te m ents, an d he wa s no t gi ve n hi s Mira nda wa rning s pri or to the que sti oni ng. 1 W e revi ew

a dis tric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m oti on t o su

ppre ss a s a

m ixe d que sti on o f la

w a nd fa ct
. United

Sta te s v . Spo er ke , 568 F.3d 1 236, 124 4 (11t h C ir. 2009 ). R uli ngs of la

w a re re vie we d de nov o , whi le the dis tric t c ourt’ s fin din gs o f fac t a re re vie we d for c le ar e rror and vie we d in

the li ght m ost fav orab le to the prev ai lin g pa

rty
. Id. The Fifth Am en dm ent prov ide s th at “ [n] o pe rson . . . s ha ll be c om pe lle d in
any c rim ina l c as e to b e a wit

ne ss a ga ins t hi m se lf.” U.S. C onst . am en d. V. The
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 458-71, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1619-26, 16 L .Ed.2d 694 1 (1966). 2Suprem e Co urt i n Mira nda “ es ta bli she d th at

c ust odi alint erroga

tio n c annot

oc cu r be fore a sus pe ct is warned

of [hi s] right s a ga ins t se lf-inc rim inatio n.” United Sta te s v . N ew some , 475 F.3d 1 221, 122 4 (11t h C ir. 20 07). Sta

te m ents m ad e in vio la tio n of Mira nda are not

a dm iss ibl e at

tria l. Mira nda , 384 U.S. a t 44 4-45, 8 6 S.Ct . at 16 12. W e have de sc ribe d th e te st fo r de te rm ini ng c ust ody a s fol lows : A de fend ant i s in

c ust ody for the purpo se s of Mira nda whe n th ere ha s be en a form alarrest

or res tra int

on fre ed om

of m ove m ent of t

he de gree a sso ci at ed

wit h a form alarrest . Whe the r [a de fend ant] wa s in cu sto dy prior t o hi s form alarrest

de pe nds on wh et

he r unde r the tot al ity of th e ci rcum sta

nc es , a rea sona ble m an in his pos iti on wo uld fee l a res tra int on h is fre ed om

of m ove m ent t o su ch

e xte nt t hat he woul d no t fe elfree to le av e. The te st i s ob je ct ive : t he a ct ua l, subj ec tiv e be lie fs of th e de fend ant a nd t he int ervi ew ingoffic er o n whe the r the de fend ant wa s free to le av e are irrel ev ant. Unde r the obj ec tiv e sta

nda rd, th e rea sona

ble pe rson from

whos e pe rspe ct ive ‘c ust ody ’ is d efi ne d is a

rea sona ble inn oc ent pe rson. United Sta te s v . Bro wn , 441 F.3d 1 330, 134 7 (11t h C ir. 20 06) (quo tatio ns, ci tatio ns, a lte rat ion , a

nd e m pha sis omitt ed). W e are to co nsi de r se ve ralfac tors in de te rm ini ng c ust ody , “ inc lud ingwhe the r the offic ers brandi she d we ap ons, tou ch ed the sus pe ct , or us ed

la ngua ge or a

ton e that i ndi ca

te d th at c om pli an ce wit

h th e offic ers c oul d be c om

pe lle d.” United

Sta te s v . St re et , 472 F.3d 1 298, 130 9 (11t h Ci r. 2006 ) (quot at ion

om itt ed). If a c ourt d et erm ine s th at

the req uire m ents o f Mira nda have be en m et , it
m ust the n de te rm ine tha

t a ny c onfe ssi ons or inc rim ina tory sta te m ents m ad e by

a

3de fend ant we re v olu nta ry in orde r to a dm it suc h st at em ents a t t ria l. Unit ed Sta te s
v. Be rnal -Ben ite z , 594 F.3d 1 303, 131 7-18 (11 th C ir.), ce rt. de nie d, 130 S.Ct . 212 3 (2010). W ith

res pe ct to the a dmiss ibi lit

y of in cri m inatory

sta te m ents a nd
co nfes sio ns m ad e by

a de fend ant t o po lic e, we c onsi de r: the tot al ity

of th e ci rcum sta

nc es , in cludi ng t

he de ta ils of th e int erroga tio n a nd t he de fend ant’ s c ha

rac te rist ic s, wh en

de ci din g whe the r a c onfe ssi on wa s vo lunta ry . W e focu s on

whe the r thepol ic e ove rrea ch ed , c onsi de ring fa ct ors su ch a s th e ac cu se d’ s la ck

of ed uc at ion , or hi s lo w inte lli ge nc e, thela ck of a ny a dvi ce to the ac cu se d of hi s c onst itutio na l rig hts , th e le ngt h of de te nti on, t

he repe at ed and p rolon ge d nature of th e que sti oni ng, a nd t he useof phy sic alpun ishm ent su ch a s th e de priva

tio n of foo d or s le ep . Id. at 13 19 (c ita

tio n, qu otatio ns, a

nd a lte rat ion

omitt ed). The dis tric t c ourt d id n ot e rr in de ny ingBa rry ’s m oti on t o e xc lud e his thre e inc rim inatin g st at em ents b ec au se , in e ac h c irc um sta

nc e, the sta

te m ents w ere m ad e vol unt ari ly

durin g a non -cus tod ia l i nte rvie w. B arry wa s no t “ in c ust ody ” durin g the int ervi ew s be ca

use , obj ec tiv el y , a

rea sona ble inn oc ent pe rson w oul d ha ve fel t free to le av e or te rm inate the int ervi ew , a nd a s su ch , Mira nda req

uire m ents d id n ot ap ply . Furthe r, al tho ugh se ve ral offic ers we re p res ent e xe cutin g se arc h wa rrant s prior t o e ac h of B arry ’s int ervi ew s, hi s st at em ents w ere vol unt ary be ca use , duri ng
ea ch brie f int ervi ew , B arry

wa s no t t hrea te ne d or phy sic al ly

de ta ine d. Th e offic ers did not brandi sh t

he ir we ap ons, and B arry

wa s inte rvie we d c al m ly

in a priva

te
are a. Und er t

he tot al ity of th e ci rcum sta

nc es , th e ev ide nc e supp orts a co nc lus ion
4that B arry ’s wil l wa s no t ov erbo rne m ere ly by the pol ic e pres en ce prior t o hi s int ervi ew s. II. Rule 404 (b) Evide nce of Pr iorAc ts Ba rry argue s th at

the dis tric t c ourt e rred i n de ny inghis m oti on in l imi neto
ex clude e vid en ce of hi s De ce m be r 2, 20 04, e nc ount er wi th p oli ce . He a sse rts t hat thi s e vid en ce wa s im

prope rly a dm itt ed , und er R

ule 404 (b), be ca

use the 200 4
en co unt er o cc urred ap proxi m at el y five y ea rs prio r to t

he c ha rged c ondu ct and wa s not ne ce ssa ry to ai d th e jury

in rend eri ng i ts v erdi ct . As suc h, he a lle ge s th at the probativ e va lue of th is e vid en ce wa s outwe igh ed by unfa ir pre

jud ic e. W e ordin ari ly

rev ie w th e dis tric t c ourt’ s e vid entia ry ruli ngs for ab use of dis cre tio n. United

Sta te s v . Matthe ws , 431 F.3d 1 296, 131 1 (11t h C ir. 20 05). Howe ve r, “ the ove rrulin g of a m oti on in l iminedoe s no t su ffice ” for pres erva tio n of an ob je ct ion on a ppe al , a nd a s su ch , we rev ie w onl y for pla in e rror whe re t

he de fend ant ob

je ct s to Ru le 404 (b) ev ide nc e in a m oti on in l imi ne , but

fai ls t o re ne w his obj ec tio n at t

ria l. Uni te d St

ate s v . Bro wn , 665 F.3d 1 239, 124 7 (11t h C ir. 2011 ). Unde r pla in e rror revi ew , a n a ppe lla nt m ust sho w (1) an e rror that (2) i s pla in, (3) affe ct s su

bst antia l rig hts , a

nd (4) s eri ousl y

a ffec ts t he fai rnes s, i nte grity , or pub lic rep utatio n of j udi ci alproc ee din gs. United Sta te s v . Ola no , 507 U.S. 72 5, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct . 177 0, 17 76, 1 23 L. Ed.2d 508 (1993 ).

5“ Fede ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 404(b) p rovid es tha t ‘ ev ide nc e of oth er c rim es , wrongs , or a ct s’ is ina dm iss ibl e to p rove the de fend ant’ s ba d c ha rac te r in o rder t o showc ondu ct

in co nform ity

the rewi th.” Brown , 665 F.3d at 12 47. Howe ve r, suc h
ev ide nc e is a dm iss ibl e for oth er p urpos es , suc h a s to prove int ent or a bse nc e of
m ist ak e. Id. ; Fe d.R .Evi d. 40 4(b). W e follo w a thre e-pron g te st fo r ad

m iss ibi lit y unde r Ru le 404 (b), an d in orde r to b e ad

m iss ibl e: (1) thee vid en ce m ust be rel ev ant to a n is sue oth er t

ha n th e de fend ant’ s c ha

rac te r; (2) th e prior a ct

m ust be
es ta bli she d by

suffic ie nt p roof to pe rm it a jury findi ng t hat t he de fend ant
co m m itt ed the e xtrin sic a ct ; a

nd (3) t he probativ e va lue of th e ev ide nc e m ust not be out we igh ed by it s un due pre

jud ic e. Matt

he ws , 431 F.3d at 13 10-11.

“ A de fend ant wh o e nte rs a not gui lty ple a m ak es int ent a

m at eri aliss ue , im posi ng a sub sta nti alburde n on

the gov ernm ent t o prov e int ent; the gov ernm ent
m ay m ee t t his burde n wi th q

ua lify ing404 (b) ev ide nc e ab se nt a ffirm at ive steps b y the de fend ant t o re m ove int ent a s a n is sue .” United

Sta te s v . De lga do , 56 F.3d 1357 , 136 5 (11t

h C ir. 19 95). W

he re p rior a ct

e vid en ce is offere d a s e vid en ce of int ent, t he e xtrin sic offen se m

ust req uire the sa

m e int ent a s th e ch arge d offe nse . United Sta te s v . Dic ke rso n , 248 F.3d 1 036, 104 7 (11t h C ir. 20 01). W ith

res pe ct to the se co nd p rong, “the unc orroborate d word of an a cc om pli ce provi de s a

suffic ie nt ba sis for co nc lud ingtha

t t he de fend ant c om

m itt ed e xtrin sic a ct s a dm iss ibl e unde r

6Ru le 404 (b).” Id. (quot at ion s a nd a lte rat ion s omitt ed). As t o th e thi rd prong , th e dis tric t c ourt s houl d c onsi de r fac tors suc h a s th e gove rnm ent’ s ne ed for ev ide nc e of int ent, t

he simila rity be twe en the c ha rged and e xtrin sic offen se s, a

nd t he ti m e el ap se d be twe en

the c ha rged and e xtrin sic offen se s. Id. Be ca use que sti ons of “ im

pe rm iss ibl e rem ote ne ss a

re s o fa ct -spe ci fic ,” we have de cl ine d to a dopt

a bright-li ne rule reg ardi ng t em pora l prox im ity

be twe en the
ex trins ic a ct

and t he c ha rged offen se , a

nd a cc ordin gly , th e “ ap pe lla nt b ea rs a he avy burde n in de m onst rat ingan a

buse of th e co urt’ s broa d di sc ret ion in de te rm ini ng i f
an e xtrin sic offen se is too rem ote to be probativ e. ” Matt he ws , 431 F.3d a

t 13 11-12 (quot at ion s a

nd c ita tio ns o m itt ed). W e have c onc lud ed tha t a n inte rven ingpe riod of a s m uc h a s 15 y ea

rs di d no t re nde r ev ide nc e of prio r co nvi ct ion s in ad m iss ibl e. United Sta te s v . Lampley , 68 F.3d 12 96, 1 300 (11th Ci r. 1995 ). “ A li m iti ng ins truc tio n c an

dimini sh a

ny unfa ir pre

jud ic e ca use d by the e vid en ce ’s a dm iss ion .” Brown , 665 F.3d at 12 47 (c iti ng Spoe rk e , 568 F.3d at 12 51). Ru le 404 (b) is a rule of inc lus ion , a

nd e vid en ce sho uld

not be e xc lud ed

whe re i t i s c entra l t o th e prose cu tio n’ s c as e. United

Sta te s v . Ec kh ardt , 466 F.3d 9 38, 9 46 (11 th C ir. 20 06). Give n th e rel ev an ce of B arry ’s prior c ondu ct , it s si m ila rity wit h th e ch arge d offens es , th e gove rnm ent’ s ne ed to prove int ent, a

nd t he fac t t hat R ule404 (b) is a rule of in clusi on, t

he dis tric t c ourt d id n ot p la inl y e rr by a dm itt inge vid en ce of

7Ba

rry ’s prior i nvol ve m ent wi th t raffic kin g in

c ount erfe it m at eri al s. Upon rev ie w of th e rec ord, a

nd c onsi de rat ion

of th e pa rtie s’ brie fs, we affirm
. AFFIRM ED.

8