N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL R

EISEW ITZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10095

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00973-GM S-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 10, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, W . FLETC HER , and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l R e ise witza

ppe a ls from

his jury c onvic tion of Posse ssion with Inte nt to Distribute

M e tha m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(l) and (b)(l)(B )(vii), a

nd C onspira c y

to Posse s s with Inte n t to Distribute 

# FIL ED
APR 13 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).M e t

ham phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 846, 84l(a )(l) and (b)(l)(B )(vii). R e ise witzargue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it a dm itte d e v ide nc e of his 2010 sta te c o nvic tion for Posse ssion of Da nge rous Drugs (m e tha

m phe tam ine ) for Sa le
and Posse ssion of Drug Pa ra p he rna lia . “ W e re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s a dm i ssion of
e vide nc e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 404(b) for a n a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Rome ro , 282 F.3d 683, 688 (9th C ir. 2002). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. Although e vide nc e of prior ba d a c ts is not a dm issible to show tha t the de fe nda n t ha s ba d c h ara c t e r and is prone to c rim ina l a c tivity , it m ay be introduc e d to show m otive , opportunity , inte nt, pre pa ra tion, pla

n , knowle dge , ide ntity , or
a bse nc e of m ista

ke or a c c ide n t. Fe d. R . Evid. 404(b). R ule 404(b) e vide n c e m ay be a d m itte d if (1) the e vide nc e te nds to provea m a te ria l point, (2) the prior a c t is not too re m ote in tim e , (3) the e vide nc e is suffic i e nt to support a finding tha

t the de fe nda n t c om m itte d the othe r a c t, a

nd (4) whe n the de fe nda

nt’ s knowle dge and inte nt a re a t issue , the a c t is simila r to the offe nse c ha

rge d. U nite d State

s v . Vo , 413 F.3d 1010, 1018 (9th C ir. 2005). W he n e v ide nc e of a

prior a c t is offe re d to prove knowle dge , the prior a c t “ ne e d not be sim ila r to the c ha

rge d a c t a s long a s the p rior a c t wa s one whic h would te nd to m ake the e xiste n c e of the de fe nda nt’ s knowle dge m ore proba

ble tha n it would be

without the

knowle dge .” Unite d State s
2v . Arambula–Ruiz , 987 F.2d 599, 603 (9th C ir. 1993) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ramire z–J imine z , 967 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th C ir. 1992)). “ If the e vide nc e m e e ts this te st unde r R

ule 404(b), the c ourt m

ust the n de c ide whe the r the probat ive va lue is substa n tia lly outwe ighe d by the pre

judic i a l im

pa c t unde r R ule 403.” Rome ro , 282 F.3d a

t 688 (9th C ir. 2002) (quoting Unite d State s v . C he a 231 F.3d 531, 534 (9th C ir. 2000)). R e ise witzonly

c ha lle nge s the first a

nd fourth prongs by c la im ing tha t his prior c onvic tion wa s not re le va n t to his knowle dge tha

t the re wa s
m e tha m phe tam ine hidde n unde r the ba c kse a t of his c o -de fe nda nt Pilla tos’ s c ar.

“ Those two prongs, in c a se s like this, a re e sse ntia lly

one and the sa

m e : sim ila

rity is
ne c e ssa ry to indic a te knowle dge and inte nt be c a use it c an furnish thelink be twe e n knowle dge ga ine d in the prior a c t a nd the c la im e d ignora

nc e of som e fa c t in the offe nse c ha

rge d .” Unite d State

s v . May ans , 17 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th C ir. 1994) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The fa c t tha t R e i se witz ’ s “ de fe nse
wa s non-pa

rtic ipat ion doe s not re n de r the issue of knowle dge irre le va nt.” Id.

“ B ut while the re le va

nc e of knowle dge c an

be e s ta blishe d at this le ve l of ge ne ra lity , the gove rnm e nt still be ars the burde n of proving a logic a l c onne c tion be twe e n [R e ise witz ’ s] purporte d involve m e nt in [se lling sm a ll a m ounts of
m e tha m phe tam ine a s the ‘ ne ighborhood drug de a le r’ ] and a m at e ria l fa c t at issue in
3the c rim e with whic h he wa s c ha rge d.” Id. a t 183. C ontra ry to the gove rnm e nt’ s
argum e nts, the re is no “ logic a l thre a d” be twe e n R e i se witz ’ s knowle dge tha t a pa c ka ge of m e tha

m p he tam ine wa s se c re te d unde r the ba c kse at of c o-de fe nda

nt Pilla tos’ s c ar a s pa

rt of a drug im

porta tion c o n spira c y

and his c onvic tion for se lling
sm a ll a m ounts of m e t

ham p h e tam ine be c a

u se “ [c om

m on] e xpe rie nc e doe s not pe rm it tha

t c onne c tion be t

we e n the two e ve nts to bem a de .” 1 Unite d State s v . He rnande z-Miranda , 601 F.2d 1104, 1108 (9th C ir. 1979) (holding tha t the distric t
c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

a dm itting e vide n c e tha

t the de fe nda

nt ha d pre viously be e n c o nvic te d of sm

uggling m arijua

na in a ba c kpa c k in a subse q

ue nt prose c ution for sm uggling he roin in a c a

r whe n de fe nda

nt c la im e d no knowle dge of the he roin in the c ar); se e also Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Orozc o , 997 F.2d 1302, 1304 (9th. C ir. 1993) (holding tha

t “ the re is no logic a l ba sis from whic h to infe r that Garc ia –Oroz c o kne wtha

t the Suburba

n c onta ine d drugs be c a

u se drugs we re found in a c ar in whic h he wa s pre viously a pa s se nge r” ). R e ga rdle ss, a ny e rror in a dm itting e v ide nc e of the prior c onvic t ion wa s ha rm le s s be c a

use “ it is not proba

ble tha t the e v ide nc e m ate r ially

a ffe c te d the

1 As R e ise witzpoints out, knowle dge that the re is som e thing hidden unde r som e one ’ s ba c kse a t is diffe re nt from the que stion of spe c ia liz e d knowle dge , i.e ., whe the r R e ise witzwould know tha t a pa c ka ge of white substa

nc e is m e tha m phe tam ine or not. 4jurors’ ve rdic t.” Arambula-Ruiz , 987 F.2d a t 605. At trial , it wa s re ve a le d tha t Pilla tos ha d four prior c onvic t i ons for drugs or drug tra ffic king a nd ha d pre viously worke d a s a

c onfide ntia l inform ant in M oha ve C o unty . Afte r the borde r patrol
a ge nts disc ove re d a

pound of m e tha

m phe tam i ne hidde n in the ba c kse a t, R e ise witz told thea ge nts tha

t he did not know Pilla

tos, did not ha

v e a c e llphone , a

nd wa s only hitc h hiking. Howe ve r, Pilla t os’ s te stim ony

im plic a ting both him and R e ise witzin the c onspira c y an d de sc ribing the ir tra

ve l paths wa s c orroborate d by
c e ll phone data

showing c o m

m unic a tions be twe e n Pilla

tos a nd R e ise witz , a s we ll
a s c o m m unic a tions be twe e n Pilla

tos a nd othe r c onspira

tors; W a l-M art vide o foota ge showing Re ise witzwa lking towa rd Pilla tos’ s c ar; a

nd vide o foota ge and doc um e ntation showing R e ise witz ’ s borde r c rossings. Furthe r, the distric t c ourt provide d a

lim iting instruc tion to the jury
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Holle r , 108 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th C ir. 2005) (finding tha t e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss be c a

u se of the substa ntia l e vide nc e supporting de fe nda n t’ s guilt a

nd the distric t c o urt’ s lim iting instruc tion), ov e rrule d

on othe r grounds b y U

nite d State

s v . Larson , 495 F.3d 1094, 1100–01 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). The prose c utor a lso e m pha s iz e d to the jury tha t the prior c onvic tion should not be use d to c onc lude tha

t be c a u se R e ise witz“ did it onc e , he m ust ha v e done it a g a in. You know, onc e a drug de a le r,

5a lwa

y s a drug de a le r.” Any e rror in a dm i tting e vide nc e of the 2010 c onvic tion wa s the re fore ha

rm le ss. AFFIRM E D.

6