The H onorab le Ro ber t L. M il le r, J r. ofthe N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1104 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. N ICO LAS G OM EZ, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10- CR-1055

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 16, 2013

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 5, 2013

Befo re B AU ER a nd H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e s, a nd M IL LER, D istrict Judge.  M IL LER, D i s t r i ctJudg e . A j ury f ound N i c ola s Gom ez gui l ty off our drug- re l ate d c rim es f ol l owing a fi ve- day j ur y t r i al

. M r . Go m ez was s en te nc ed to f o urc o nc ur r en t 84- m onth t er m s. M r. Gom ez conte nd s that the di str i ct2 N o. 12

- 1104

cour t e rr ed i n adm i tting ev i dence ofhi s pos ses si on o f coca i ne a few weeks afterthe charg ed cr i m es, a n d that the di str i ct j ud ge didn’tsp ec ify hi s perj uri ous s tat em ents w hen i ncre asing hi s s entencing r ange f oro bstru c ti on of jus tic e. W e a ffirm th e c on vic tio n an d se n te n c e. W h ile the a dm i ssi on o fthe uncharge d c oc ai ne poss ess i on was questi onabl e, i t was nota n a b u se ofdi scr eti on. W e a l so hol d tha tg i v e n the c o nt e xto fthe s t a t e men t s , the di str ict co u rtm ad e a su fficie n t re c or d

.
I This i nvest i gat i on was bas ed large l y upon i nter cepti on of tel ep hon e com m un ications b etw een Rob erto Rom ero an d a m al e r efer r ed to a s “Gue r o . ” The g o ve r nm en t be l i ev es Gue r o was M r. Gom ez . Two dat es a r e i m po r ta nt f orto day’ s di scussion ; add i ti onalf acts ar e s et f or th as n ee d ed

. On Septe m ber3, 20 10, two ag ents sto pp ed an d s po k e wi thM r . Go m ez i m m ed ia te l y a fte r s ee i ng M r . G om ez sp eaking w ith Ro berto R om ero. M r. Rom ero w as t h o u gh t t o b e M r. G om ez ’s s u p p lier a n d w ou ld beco m e M r. Gom ez’ s co - defe nd ant. Lateri n the day, age nts s ear ched a ca r and fo und a quarter ki l ogr am of coca i ne. The car M r. Rom er o had dr i ven fro m Chica go to M i l w aukee was eve ntual l y s ear ched by age nts. Tw enty-s ix days l ate r, ag ents ar re ste d M r. Gom ez at hi s ho m e a nd sea rche d the r esi dence pursuant t o a s ear ch w ar ra nt. The ag ents f ound a pers onaluse q u an ti ty of c o c a i ne i n the p o c k e to fa p a i r o fp a nt s f o un d in a b e dro om co nnected with M r. Gom ez. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed M r. Gom ez’ s pretr i al m oti on to supp ress ev i denceN o. 12

- 1104 3

o fthe sear cha nd i ts fr ui ts
. The a dm i ss i o n o ftha t co ca i ne i nto evi dence at tr i al gi ves ri se to the fi rs t i ssue prese nted inth is a p p ea l. The go ver nm ent m ove d fo r a pre tr i aldeter m i nati on of the adm i ssibi l i ty ofthe Se ptem ber29 co cai ne ev i dence. The g o ve r nm en t co nc ede d tha t the a dm i ss ibi l i tyo fthe co ca i ne de pen ded o n what M r . Gomez ar g ue d at tr i al, b ut the e vi dence w oul d be a dm i ssibl e i fM r. Gom ez ar gued that he l acke d knowledge, he wasn’ t the per son i nvol ved i n the c on spi ra cy, o r that thi s was al lj ust a n ac c id en t o r m ist ak e. M r. G om ez arg u ed t h a t t h e e vid e n c e a t i s s ue w o u l d n ’ tb e r e l e v a n tu n d e r a n y c i r c u msta nces because he was char ged with conspi ra cy ra ther t ha n p o s s e s s i o n, a n d th e S e p t e mb e r 2 9 e v e n t s h a ppened a fterthe charg ed conspi ra cy. The co urt denie d th e g o ve r nm en t’ s r eque st, ex pl aini ngtha t whi l e th e sequence ofev ents did n’tdefeatadm i ssibi l i ty, addit i onal i nf o r m at i o n was ne ede d to c o nne ctM r . Go m ez t o the coca i ne f ound on the day o fthe ar re st. T h e g o v e r n me n t r e n e we d i t s mo t i o n t o a d m i t th e co ca i ne e vi den ce unde r Rul e 4 04(b) a t tr i al

. The g o ve r nm ent a rgued that M r. Gom ez had “opened the door th r o ug h [ hi s] o pen i ngs ta te m en t an d c r o ss - ex amina ti o ns oftwo w i tness es re gar ding [ hi s] notposs ess i n g or touchi ng co cai ne, i m ply i ng tha t [ he] was j ust a n i nnoce ntb y st an dera t th e wro ngpl ac e atthe wro ng ti m e. ” Gov ’ t Br
. , a t 1 4. I n s uppo r t o fi ts po si ti o n, the gov er nm ent no ted that : M r. Gom ez’ s co unselhad est abl i shed, thr ough the ag ent who conducted a pa td ow n o f M r. Gom ez on the st re et s om e weeks pri orto hi s a rr est,4 N o. 12

- 1104 th at th e agen t had n’t fou n d c ocaine , cocaine pa rap he rna li a, or large am ou nt s o f cas h on M r. Go m ez; M r. Go m ez’s counselhad est ab lished, thr ough cr oss - exam i nati on o f an ag ent who conducted surv ei l l anc e of M r. Gom ez, that the a gent saw no h and-to

- hand transa cti ons orM r. Gom ez w ith coc a in e ; and that M r. Go m ez’s cou ns el tol d the j ury i n openi ng sta tem ent that i t w oul dn ’ t see an y e vid ence ab o utM r . Go m ez ha vingc o ca i ne o n h i m dur i ngthe p er iod of th e c h ar ge d co n sp ira c y. T h e g ov er n m en t to ld the c o ur ti twa nt e d t o r e s po nd t o the i mpl i c a t i o n that M r . Go m ez was “ ba si cal l y the unluck i es t m ani n the w or l d,” in the w ro ng p l ace at the w ro ng ti m e. M r. Gom ez o bj ec te d t o the g o ve r nm en t’ s r en ew ed r eque st, a r g ui ng t h a tn o d o o r h a d b e e n o p e n e d a n d n o th i n gh a d h a pp en ed sinc e th e pr et r i alde ni alo fthe g o ve r nm en t’s re quest t o m ake the evi dence adm i ssibl e. The co u rt r ule d that whil e M r. Gom ez m i ght ha ve opened the doorto ev i de nce co rr ecting a m i si m pressi on, t o o l i tt l e ev i den ce c o nne ct ed M r . Go m ez t o the coca i ne f ound on the day o fthe ar re st: The i m pl ica ti o n o f[ defen se c o uns el ’ s] que st i o ni ng w as not si m ply, [ M r. G om ez ] d oes nothave drugs on hi m now. The i m pli cati on o f[ defe n se counsel ’ s] q u es tio n in g w a s , [ M r. G om ez ] is n otatall as so c iat ed w ith d ru gs . A n d I th in k t h at infe re n c e is w hat [ defe nse c ounsel ] wanted to g et to the j ury. [ M r . Go m ez] i s ani ndi vi dualwho i s pur e as the ne w f al l ens no w. And the y a r e put tinga l lo fthe th i n g s o n h i m, f o r wh a t e v e r r e a s o n, I d o n ’ tk n o w. Buttha t was the i m pl i ca ti o n.N o. 12

- 1104 5 A nd the cour t i s no t r uling tha t th ey c an do that because the cour t has nothear d the e vi dence as to w hat they woul d expect to be abl e t o

— how t he y are going to es tabl i sh thatwh en [ M r. G om ez ] was i n the ro om , wh ethero r not they w er e hi s pants, etc. et c. et c. S o we wi l ldo that ou tsi de th e pr es en ce o fthe j ury. But Iam j ust s aying tha t ther e hav e be en questi ons that you have ask ed, wh ich w er e pr operquesti ons. But theyo pen the o pp ortuni ty, m aybe , f or som e r esponse to [ thos e] i ssues . Tr. at37 9. Se ver alwitnes ses l ate r, the gov er nm ent r enewed i ts re quest t o adm i t the Rul e 4 04(b) ev i dence , a rg u i ng tha t i t ha d e st ab l i sh ed th atthe a ddr es s wher e th e co ca i ne w as foun d on t h e da y of th e arrest w as M r. Go m ez’s reside nc e an d th e bed room at issue w as M r. G o m e z’s be dr o o m . M r . Go m ez a g ain obj ec te d, fi r st, b ec au se the ev i den ce was ins uffi ci en t to s uppo r t a fi ndi ngtha t he co m m i tt ed a si m i l ara ct; s ec o nd, b ec au se numer o us peopl e l i ved i n that house so the b edro om co uld ha ve bel onge d to anyo ne; and, third , because the bedro om con tained “ q u ite a bi t of clutt er, ” it w asn ’t cl ear w he re th e j ea ns w ere found o r i fhe o wned the m . In r eply, the gov er nm ent s peci fi ed that the l ate r coca i ne ev idence w as offer ed on the is su es ofi denti ty and absence o f m istake, rath er than a s p rop en sity eviden ce. M r. Go m ez’s co uns elr ej o i ne d tha t i t was pr o pen si tye vi den ce a nd th atthe r e was t o o l i tt l e ev i den ce t o s uppo r t a fi nd i ng that M r. Gom ez com m i tte d the s ubsequent a ct.6 N o. 12

- 1104 Thi s ti m e, the c o ur t ag r ee d wi ththe g o ve r nm en t an d ad m itt ed th e evid en c e on th e issu es of i d en tit y, k n ow led ge, an d absen ce of m istake or accid en t. T he j ury he ar d the e vi den ce a nd was t o l d i n the fi na li ns truct i o ns that i t coul d onl y c onsi der the S eptem ber29 ev i dence “o n th e q u es tio n of id en tit y, ab se n c e o f m ist ak e o r ac c id en t, an d kn ow led ge .”

A M r. G om ez cla im s t h e a d m i s s i on of ev id en c e o f h is subsequent posse ssi on o fa useram ount o fco cai ne as Rul e 40 4(b) e vi den ce was a n ab us e ofdi sc r et i o n a s th e admi ss i o n o ftha t ev i den ce fail s ea chpr o ngo fthe Rule 404(b) te st. “W e re vi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s adm i ssi on of evi dence f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n [ an d] wi l lr ev erse ane vi den

ti ar y ruling o nl y whe n t h e re cor d contains no evi dence on w h ich the dist ri ct c ourtr ati onal l y c oul d have ba sed its ru lin g.” U ni t e d S t a te s v. Gor m an , 61 3 F
. 3d 711, 71 7 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10)
. “W e give speci aldefer ence to the t ri alj ud ge regard ing th ese m atters b ecau se of his fi rst-han d exp osu re to w i tness es, f am i l i ar i ty w i th the cas e, and abi l i ty to g au g e th e i m pac t o fthe e vi den ce i n the conte xto fthe ent i r e p r o c e e di ng . On l y wh e r e n o r e a s o nab l e p e r son c o u l d t a k e th e v i e w a d o p t e d b y th e t r i a lc o u r twi l lwe re ver se an ev i denti ar y ruling. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. V a rgas , 552 F.3d 550, 554 (7th Cir. 2008) (ci tation om itted ); a c c o r d Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S a n t i ago , 6 43 F. 3d 1007, 10 11 ( 7th C ir. 2011).N o. 12

- 1104 7 W hen M r. Gom ez w as tr i ed in S ep tem ber20 11, Fe deral Rul e o f Ev i de nc e 4 0 4 ( b ) pr o v i de d tha t “ [ e ] v i de nc e o f othe r cri m es, wrongs, o r acts i s no t a dm i ssibl e t o prove th e ch ar ac te r o fa pe r so n in o rd er t o s ho w ac ti o n in c o nf or m i ty th er ew i th. I t m ay, however, be adm i ssibl e for othe r pu rpos es, such a s pro ofo f m oti ve, o pp or tuni ty, i ntent, pre parat i on, pl an, kno w l edge, i denti ty, o r abse nce ofm i sta ke or a c c i dent. ” F orthe evi dence to be adm i ssib le, th e no n -p ro p en sit y pr ob at ive va lu e of th e e v id en c e m ust be suffi ci ent s o as not to be s ubstanti ally ou tw eig h ed by th e r i s k t h at th e jur y w ill us e t h e e vidence as pro ofo fa n im properchar acte r i nfe re nce. F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3; U nit e d S t at e s v. Ci e s i ol ka , 61 4 F
. 3d 347, 35 5- 56 (7th C ir. 2010). A co urt deci ding w hetherto ad m it evi dence und er R u le 4 04 (b ) co n sid er s w h et h er “(1 ) th e e vid en c e is dir ecte d toward est abl i shi ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r than the de fe nd a nt ’ s p r opens i t y t o c o mm i tthe c r i me c ha r g e d, ( 2) th e evidence shows that the o theracti s s i m i l ar en o ug h a nd c l o se e no ug h in t i m e to b e re l ev an t to the m atter in issue, (3) the evid en ce is suffi cientto sup p ort a j ury fi nd i ng tha t the defendant com m i tt ed the si m i l ar act, a n d (4) the pr obat i ve val ue o fthe evi dence i s no t su b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed by th e d an ge r o fu n fair prej ud i ce, as r equi re d by Rul e 4 03. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v. A lbi ola , 624 F.3d 4 3 1 , 439 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); a cco rd U nited St at e s v. Bol i ng, 648 F.3d 474 , 479 (7th C ir. 2011). M r . Go mez c o nt e nd s tha tn o ne o fthe s e f a c t o r s s up port ed adm i ssi on o fthe Se ptem ber29 ev i dence.8 N o. 12

- 1104 B T h e fi rs t co nsi derat i on i s whether the e vi dence w as dir ecte d toward estab l i shi ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r th a n th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s p r o p e n s i t y t o c o mmi tth e c r i me charg ed. M r. Gom ez poi nts t o the di str i ct c ou rt’ s infe

li citous com m en t w he n d iscus sing th e govern m e nt ’s fi rs t in-t ri alo ffero fthe Se ptem ber29 ev i dence: The i m pl i ca ti o n o f[ defen se c o unsel ’ s] que st i o ni ng w as not si m ply, [ M r. Gom ez] does not h av e d rugs on hi m n ow . The i m pli cati on o f[ defe nse c ounsel ’ s] q u es tio n in g w as , [M r. G om ez ] is n ota t a l l as so c iate d w i th drugs

. A nd Ithi nk t ha t inf e r e nc ei s what [ de f e nse co un se l ]want e d t o ge tt o thej ury. [M r . Gom ez] is an ind ivi du a l w ho is pu r e a s th e new fallen sno w . And they ar e putti ng al lof the thi ngs on h i m , f orwh ate ver r ea so n, Ido n’ t k no w. Buttha t was the i m pl i ca ti o n. Tr
. a t3 7 9 ( e mpha s i s a dde d)

. Attha t po i nt i n the p r o c e e dings, the govern m en t sou gh t a d m is sion on th e the ory that by f ocusin g on the l ack ofey ew i tness te sti m ony that M r. Gom ez had posses sed co cai ne duri ng the ti m e o f thi s con sp ira cy, the defe nse had o pened the doorto evid ence tha t he po ss es se d c o ca i ne s ho r tly a fte r the c o nspi r ac y ’ s ex pi r at i o n. H ad the di str i ct c ourtad m itt ed the evi dence atthat poi nt, i t would have bee n er ro r. T he princi ple o f“doo r op en in g” “d ep en d s o n th e s p ec ific s itu at ion in w h ich it i s use d and thus c alls for a n exer ci se ofj ud i ci aldi scr et i o n. ” U nited St at e s v. Vi l l egas , 655 F.3d 662 , 672 (7th C ir. 2011 )
. A defendant’s o pening s tatem ent m i ght incre ase th e p ro b at ive va lu e o f p ro of of o th er ac ts , see, e.g., U nitedN o. 12

- 1104 9 State s v. D ennis , 4 97 F. 3d 76 5, 7 68 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , b utthe Rule 404(b) ev i dence m ust r espond to wh at i s s ai d to tr igg er ad m iss ibilit y. Vil l egas , 6 55 F
. 3d at6 72
. Nothi ng abo u t M r. Gom ez’ s defense had opened the doo r to hi s po ss es si o n o fc o ca ine i n a t i m e o ut si de th e co nspi ra cy, any m or e than chall enging ev i dence thata defendant r obbe d a banko n one day opens the door to evi dence thathe ha d ro bbed a bank on a notherday. Butthe e vi den ce was n’ t admi tt ed attha t po i nti n the tr ial. T h e c ou rtrefu se d to ad m it it b ec au se to o litt le evi de nc e t i e d the p o s t
- c o ns pi r a c y c o c a i ne t o Mr
. Go mez. By the ti m e the go ve rn m en t o ffer ed the Se ptem ber29 evi dence ag ain, the gov er nm ent s peci fi ed that i t was off er i ngthe e vi den ce t o pr o ve i den ti ty, kno wl edg e, a nd ab se nc e o fmis ta k e. The g o ve r nm en t sa i d no th i ngabo ut re b ut t i ngthe o pe nings t a t e men to r Mr
. Go mez ’ s c r o ssex am in atio n oftwo ag ents

— nothi ng ab out M r. Gom ez ha vingo pen ed th e do o r . The t r i alc o ur t admi tt ed th e evi dence and eve ntual l y told t h e j ury the e vi dence w as admi tt ed o n the i ss ue s o fi den ti ty, kno wl edg e, a nd abse nce o fm i sta ke. W hatev ertheo ryo fadm i ss ibil i ty m i ght ha ve been disc ussed ea rl i eri n the t ri al, the Se ptem ber29 ev i dence ultim ately w as ad m itted f or the n on- p rop en sity pu rposes o fi denti ty, kno w l edge, and abse nce o fm i sta ke. The gover nm ent s ati sfi ed the fi rs t pr ong ofthe tes t for adm i ssibi l i ty.10 N o. 12

- 1104 C T h e s ec on d p ro n g of t h e t es t fo r ad m iss ibilit y is w hetherthe evid en c e i s s i m i l areno ugh and cl ose enou gh i n ti m e t o be r el evantto the non- propensi ty mat t e r i n i s s ue o n whi c h i ti s o ffe r e d

— in o th erwords, w hetheri t i s probati ve ofi denti ty orabs ence ofm ist ake

. M r. Gom ez ar gues that the S eptem ber29 ev i dence w as n otrele va n t t o e ith er p oin t.

1 M r. G om ez i s co rr ect w i th r espectto abs ence ofm i stak e. Rule 404(b) , at the ti m e of tr i al and no w , speci fi es ab se nc e o fmis ta k e as a n il lustra ti ve e xa m pl e o fthe no np rop en sity pu rp oses for w hich eviden ce of a defen d an t’s act on a nothero ccasi on is p er m i ssibl e. Evi dence offer ed for th atpur po se a l m o sti nv ar i ab l y g o es t o whethe r the defen dan t was mis ta k en, no t to whethe r i nv es ti g at o rs w er e m i sta ken. S ee, e. g., U nite d State s v. A lbiola , 62 4 F
. 3d 431, 43 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. W hi t l ow , 38 1 F
. 3d 67 9, 68 6 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). O n e t ria l ’ s fa c ts inv ar iab ly differ fro m the one bef or e, so i t would be wrong t o sayuncharg ed m i sco nd uct ev id en c e nev erco uld be ad m iss i b l e t o p ro ve an ab se n c e o f m ist ak e o n th e in ve st igat or s’ behal f

. But M r. Gom ez’ s case s h ows w hy such a case w ou ld be an outlier. M r . Go m ez ’ s pr i m ary de fen se a t tr i al w as th atthe i nvest i gat or s were m i sta ken a s t o w hose vo i ce they r ecor ded co nspir i ng with Rober to Rom ero. M r. Gom ez p oin te d ou t t h at oth er s (s u c h as V ict or R ey es ) l ive d inN o. 12

- 1104 11 the r e s i de nc e fr o m whi c h cal l s we r e ma de a nd r e c e i v e d, and, as al re ady not ed, M r. Gom ez poi nted out the l ack o fa ny e y ewi tn ess t es ti m o ny t o hi s par ti ci pat i o n. The i nv es ti g at o r s, he i m pl i ed, wer e m i st ak en . The g o ve r nm ent’ s S eptem ber29 ev i dence r ebutte d that i m pli cati on onl y by showing preci sel y w hat Rule 40 4(b) f orbi ds: that M r. Gom ez has a pro pensi ty toward i nvol vem en t wi th co ca i ne , m ak i ng i t l es s pr o babl e th at th e in

v es tig at or s w er e m ist ak en . S e eUni t e d S t at e s v . Web b , 548 F. 3d 547, 54 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “A s for‘ absen ce o fm i stak e’ : how does a co nvi cti on s how thi s exc eptv i a th e prohibi ted i nfe re nce that s om eone wh o dist ributes d ru gs on c e is likely to d o it a ga in ? ”) ( e m p h as is in orig in a l )
. A b s e n c e o fmi s t a k e was n o t, u n d e r th e c i r c u mst a n c e s o fth i s c a s e , a n o n - p r o p e n s i t y p u r p o s e f o r the Se ptem ber29 ev i dence.

2 N or can w e p e r ceive a series ofnon -prop en sity i nferences that w oul d m ake M r. Gom ez’s laterposs ess i on o f coca i ne r el evantto hi s kn owledge duri ng the co nspir acy. T h e g ov er n m en t d id little m or e, attria l a n d be for e t h is cour t, than m enti on “kn owledge ” a s o ne purpose f or w hich the Sep tem ber 2 9 ev iden ce w as offered. M ere passi ng r efer ence i sn’ t e nough. “To differ en tiate b etween
‘ th e i l l eg i ti m at e us e o fa pr i o r c o nv i ct i o n t o s ho w pro pen si ty and the pro per use of a pri orco nvi cti on t o prove i nt en t, ’ ‘ th e g o ve r nm en t m us t affi r m at i ve l y s ho w w hy a p articu lar p riorconv iction tend s to show th e m ore f or w ar d-l oo ki ng f act ofpurpose, desi gn, o r vol i ti on t o12 N o. 12

- 1104

com m i t the new cri m e. ’ ” U n i ted S ta tes v. M iller, 67 3 F. 3d 688, 69 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( quoti ng U ni t e d St at e s v. Jo nes , 389 F.3d 753 , 757-58 (7th C ir. 2004)).

3 M r. Gom ez c onte nd s the go ver nm ent’ s s how i ng was i nsuffi ci ent t o prove i denti ty. H e a rgues that unchar ged ac ts c anpr o ve i den ti ty only th r o ug h a s ho wi ngo fthe defen dan t’ s di st i nc ti ve manne r o fo per at i o n, o r m odus ope r andi

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 47 9 F .3d 4 92, 49 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. H e a lso a r g ue s th athi s po ss es si o n o fc o ca i ne tw en ty -six d a y s a fte r th e d isc ov er y of t h e c oc ain e in M r. Rom er o’ s ca r i s t oo r em ote to be proo fo fanythi ng. M r. Go m ez oversta tes t h e relati ons hip of m odus ope r andiand other m eth od s of p roving a crim inal actor’s id en tit y. M odus ope r andi

— a cri m i nal ’ s par ti cul arway o f c o mm i t t i ng a cr i m e

— is a co m m on way o fpro vi ng a perpetr ato r’ s i denti ty; i t r equi re s no i nfe re nce o f chara ctero r propensi ty to saythatbec ause thi s per son com m i ts cri m es i n the sam e pecul i arway t h e char ged cr i m e was co m m i tt ed, pr o o fo fa no th era ctt o s ho w the perso n’s pecul i arapproa ch doesn’ t e nl ist any i nfe re nce ab ou t t h e p er so n ’s p ro p en sit y t o c om m it th e c rim e in th e fi r s t p lac e. Se e, e . g, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ani f owos he, 30 7 F. 3d 643, 64 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. But mod u s o p e r andii sn ’t the o nl y way e vi dence ofco nd uct o n another occa si on can be relevant to i d en tit y w ithou t relying on an i nferen c e of c h ar ac te r o r p r o p en sit y. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. S i m ps on , 4 79 F
. 3d 472, 4 97

- 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ex pl aini ngN o. 12

- 1104 13 di ffer en ce b etwee n mod u s o pe r andiand other m etho ds of p roving iden tity throu gh un ch arged cond uc t). M r. Gom ez ar gues that Se p tem ber29 was to o re m ote fro m the conspi ra cy’ s tim e fr am e t o be r el evant
. M r. G om ez d es c rib es t h e s ep ar at ion as “w ee ks ,” w h ile th e gover nm ent points t o U nite d States v. D ennis , 4 9 7F
. 3d 765, 76 8- 69 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , in w hi ch eve nts that occu rred six m ont hs before the ch arged crim e w ere c on sid er ed clo se en ou gh in t im e t o b e rele va n t. Sim p ly defi ni ngthe t i m e per i o d or c i tingc as es tha t i nvo l v e d g r e a t e r t i me pe r i o ds do e s no t r e a c h the he a r to f th e rem oten e s s a sp ect of the relevan cy p rong. A cou rt consi deri ng adm iss ion o f e vid en c e go verned by Rule 404(b) m ust a sk w hether, u n d er the speci fi c f acts o fthe c as e an d the s tr i ngofi nfer en ce s o n whi chthe proponent ofthe evi dence r el i es, the u ncharg ed conduct i s c l o se en ou gh in t im e t o b e re lev an t. Se e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Chapman , 692 F.3d 822 , 827 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 2); U nite d States v. Sebol t, 460 F .3 d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2006); U nite d States v. C hav is , 429 F.3d 662 , 669-70 (7th C ir. 2005 ) . U n d er the f acts o fthi s ca se, i fM r. Gom ez’ s l ate r po ss ess i o n o fc o ca i ne i s r el ev an t to the i den ti tyo fthe perso n on th e r eco rded cal l s, twenty- si x days i s no t so re m ote as to r educe thatr el evancy . A defendant’s pri or or subsequent posse ssi on o f co ca i ne i sn ’ t al w ay s admi ss ibl e when i den ti tyi s ati ss ue ina d ru g c as e. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Br own , 4 71 F. 3d 802, 80 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. To s ati sfy thi s pro ng o fthe Rule 404(b) te st, th e u n c h ar ge d ac t e vid en c e m u st m ak e it m o r e p ro b ab le that the defe nd ant w as the acto r i n the charg ed cr i m e.14 N o. 12

- 1104 M o r e spe ci fi ca l l y, M r . Go m ez ’ s po ss es si o n o fc o ca i ne o n S e pt e mbe r 2 9 mus t mak e i t mor e pr o b ab l e t hat M r . Go m ez was the pe r so n inv o l ve d i n th e dr ugc o nspi ra c y ( and captured o n the m oni tor ed phone cal l s) w i th M r. Rom er o. Th a ta ny o ne i n M i l wa uk e e p o s s e s s e d c o c a i ne o n S e ptem ber29 , 20 10 tel l s a j urornothi ng ab out w hether N i co l as Go m ez was i nv o l ve d i n a l ar g e co ca i ne di st r ibuti on o perat i on with Rober to Rom er o ear l i eri n 201 0. T hat i t was N i col as Gom ez w h o p ossess ed the coca i ne o n Se ptem ber29 adds nothi ng to i ts p robati ve val ue, unl ess the j ur o r r e a s o ns tha tthe S e pt e mbe r 2 9 p o s s e s s i on shows that M r. Gom ez has a pro p en si ty toward i nvol vem ent with coc ai ne

— but that i s the i nfe re nce Rul e 4 04(b) f o rb i d s . A g e n t s qu e s t i o n e d Mr
. G o me z n e a r th e t i me and place M r. Rom er o’s abandoned carwas f ound w i th a qu ar terki l ogr am o fco cai ne, but si x other peop le w er e nea rbyatthe sam e t im e, and thi s a l lo ccurr ed nearM r. Gom ez’ s r esi dence. The go ver nm ent no tes , tho ugh, t h at the coc ai ne was f ound i n M r . Go mez ’ s r o o m i n a h o us e a s s o c i a t e d wi th one ofthe phones i nvol ve d in the si xty- one re cor ded phone c a l l s i n whi c h s o meo ne a r r a ng e d c o c a i ne de l i ver ies w ith M r. R om er o. A n d th e c o c a i n e w as fou n d in M r. Gom ez ’s ro om i n that house l ess than f our w eek s aft er th e a b or te d d eliv er y b y M r. R om er o. T h es e a d d itional f ac t s , t he govern m en t argu es, m ake it m ore probabl e tha t M r. Gom ez w as the per son w hose vo i ce wa s o n tho s e r e c o r de d c a l l s . In s up po r to fi t s a r g um ent, the g ove rnm ent c i tes Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 47 1 F.3dN o. 12

- 1104 15 802, 80 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , i n w hi ch t h e defe nd ant cl ai m ed he had neve r had any deal i ng s w i th a confedera te n a me d V e a l, “ wh o mu s th a v e p i c k e d [ B r o wn ’ s ] n a me o uto fa ha t. ” Undertho se c i r cumst an ces , the g o ve r nm ent’ s e vi dence thatBro w n had been deal i ng with Veal f o r y ea r s was re l ev an t to pr o ve Br o wn’ s i den ti tya s th e p er so n w ith w h om V ea l d ea lt. Se eal s o Unit e d S tat e s v. Gib s on, 17 0 F
. 3d 673, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 199 9) (“Thi s e vi dence he l ped es tabl i shtha t A g en t Ban k s dea l t wi thGibs o n, not hi s br o th er, i n the c ha r g ed 19 96 dr ugt r an sa ct i o ns even thou gh Gibson did not confess to th e sp ecifi c un d ercove r sales in th is case.”)
. T h e in fer en c e o n w h ich th e g ov er n m en t re lies in t h is ca se i s l es s co m pel l i ngtha n tha t i n Br own ; the l ate r posses si on o fcoc ain e di scl ose s no r el ati onshi p between M r. G om ez an d M r. R om er o. St ill, ev id en c e is rele va n t if it h as an y t en d en c y t o a m ak e a fac t o fc o n s eq u en c e in d et er m in in g t h e a c tio n m or e o r les s p r o b ab le th an it w ou ld b e w ith ou t th e e vid en c e, F ED . R. E V ID . 4 01 , a nd the Se p te m b er 29 ev id en c e h as so m e t en d e n c y t o m ak e it m o r e pr o babl e th at M r . Go m ez , a pe r so n l i vingi n a ho us e as so ci at ed wi tho ne o fthe p hon es o n whi chdr ug d eliv er ies w er e a rra n ge d , w as th e p er so n rec or d ed in c on ve rs at ion w ith M r. R om er o. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v . Bor os , 66 8 F
. 3d 901, 90 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( “A party f aces a sig n ificant obsta cl e in ar gui ng tha t e vi dence shoul d be ba rr ed bec au se it i s not relevan t, give n t h a t the Su p rem e C ou rt has s tat ed that ther e i s a ‘ l ow thres hol d’ fores tablish in g t h at ev id en c e i s r ele va n t. W e h av e re c en tly ass er te d that ‘ [ t] he Fe deralRule s o fEvi dence do not16 N o. 12

- 1104 l i m i t the go ver nm ent t o th e ‘ m ost ’ pro bati ve evi dence; al lr el ev an t ev i den ce i s admi ss ibl e an d the Rul es defi ne r e l e v a nc e b r o a dl y . ’ ” ) ( qu o t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cKi b b i ns , 65 6 F
. 3d 70 7, 7 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)). A sse ss i ngthe e xt en t o ftha t te nde nc y i s a m at te r f o r the f o ur thpr o ng of the anal ysis
. SeeU nite d States v. B eck, 62 5 F
. 3d 410, 41 7 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 1 0) (“ W h ile ev id en c e o f B ec k’s p ro b at ion co u ld be ad m itted to establish his iden tity, un d er Ru le 404(b), the j ud ge sti l lhas to w ei gh i ts ap p ro p riatenes s under R ule 403.”).

D A d m iss ibi l i ty u n d er R u le 4 04 (b ) req u ire s e n ou gh ev id e n c e t o s u p p o r ta j u r y fi n d i n gth a tth e d e fe nd a n tc o mm itt ed th e o th er ac t. U nite d States v. A lbi ola , 62 4 F
. 3d at 43 9. M r . Go m ez c o m pl ains tha t the ev ide nc e o fhi s o cc upanc y ofthe bedro om was am bi guous. Docum ents f ound in the b ed ro om i denti fi ed Vic torReye s; M r. Reye s ha d i den ti fi ca ti o n s ho wi nghe l i ve d i n the ho us e; a nd M r. R ey es h ad as so c iat ed th e h ou s e w i th p h on es in h is na m e. F ur th er, M r . Go m ez no te s, the a g en ts ’ t es ti m o ny di s a g r e e d a s t o wh e th e r th e c o c a i n e wa s f o u nd i n a j acket ora pai r ofj eans, and the chem i st’ s a nal ysi s o f th e su bs ta nc e wa s ( as M r . Go m ez s aw i t) l es s th anc o nvi nci ng. M r. G om ez dem ands gr eat ercer tainty than does Rule 404(b)

. Proofthatwould al l ow a f actfi nd erto co nne ctthe unc ha rged a ct wi ththe de fen dan t i s no sm al lburden, but the Rule r equi re s no m or e than that.N o. 12

- 1104 17 Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 410 (7th Cir. 2005). Th e di s t r i c t c o ur t de c l i ne d t o a dmi t the S e pt e mber 2 9 ev i den ce unt i lthe g o ve r nm en t l ai d thi s f o unda ti o n. Ul t i ma t e l y, th e e v i d e n c e s h o we d th a tMr
. G o me z c a me out ofthe roo m a t 6: 00 a. m . wh en the ag ents executed the warr ant, and sev er aldocum ents add re sse d to M r. G om ez w er e fo u n d th er e. Fr om th a t, a rea so n ab le j uror co uld i nfe r that the b edr oo m co ntai ned M r. Go mez ’ s b e l o ng i ng s . T he a ddi t i o na lf a c t s t o whi ch M r . Go m ez po i nt s would a ll o w a di ffer en t fi ndi ng, b ut d on ’t f or ecl ose a fi nd i ng tha t M r. Gom ez w as the per son w ho pos ses sed the coca i ne o n Se ptem ber29
. T he govern m en t satisfi ed the th ird p rong of the fourpart tes t.

E F i n ally , ad m iss ion is im p ro p er if th e ris k of u n fair prej ud i ce fro m adm i ssi on of the uncharge d a c t e vid ence substa nti al l y o utw ei ghs i ts proba ti ve non- propensi ty val ue. The m ostco m m on r i sk ofunfa i r prej u d i ce i s that the j u rywil ldraw the forbi dd en pro pensi ty i nfe re nce

— that the defendant is the s or t o fper son w ho does wh at he ’ s ch ar g ed wi th

— and M r. Gom ez i denti fies no o ther r i s k

. A d mi s s i o n o ft he S e pt e mb e r 2 9 e v i d e n c e w a s i mpr o per, the n, i fthe r i skthat th e j ur y woul d dr aw the f or bi dde n pr o pe ns i t y i nf e r e nc e substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed the p ro b ati ve val ue o fthe evi dence as pro ofo f the i denti ty ofthe perso n w h o disc ussed co cai ne del i ver i es on phones ass oci ate d with the house in w h ich the c oca i ne was f ound on Se ptem ber29
.18 N o. 12

- 1104 A s a l re ady not ed, the strin g o fi nfe re nces on wh i ch the gov er nm ent re l i es to get fro m M r. Gom ez’ s p oss essi on o fco cain e on Se ptem ber29 to M r. Gom ez’ s invol veme n ti n th i s c o c a i n e c o n s p i r a c y i s n o tp a r t i c u l a r l y c o mpel l i ng. Bal anci ng the r i sk ofunfa i r prej ud i ce a ga i nst pr o bativ e va l ue i s do ne o n a s l i di ngs ca l e: the l o werthe proba ti ve val ue, t he l ower the to l er ance o fthe ri sk of p rej u d ice
. U nite d Sta te s v . E arls , 70 4 F
. 3d 466, 47 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 12 ). O th er j u d ge s, in c lu d in g m em b e r s o f th is pan el, mightwel lhave d eci ded th atthe r i sktha t th e ev i den ce woul d b e us ed as pr o o fo fpr o pen si tys ubs ta nti al l y o utw ei ghed the proba ti ve val ue i n that str i ng o f in fer en c es . To d ay ’s is su e, th ou gh , i s n ’t a d m iss ibilit y; it is w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in ad m itt in g t h e e vid en c e. U nite d States v. Lewis , 64 1 F.3d 773, 78 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “al though we m i gh t h av e r ule d diffe rentl y, the dist ri ct j ud ge did notabuse herdi scr etio n ”); ac co r d Unit e d S t at e s v. O zun a , 674 F. 3d 677 , 681 (7t h C ir. 20 12 ) (“T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to ad m it ev i den ce i s re viewed f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, g i ve n the j u d ge ’s p os itio n to as se ss th e im p ac t o f th e e v i d en c e in the c onte xt o fthe tr i alwitnes ses a n d ev i dence as a whol e. ”)
. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n. Fi rs t, the dist ri ct courtinst ructe d the j ury on the l i m i ted use to w hi ch the Se ptem ber29 ev i dence co uld be put. W e a ssum e j uri es or dinar i l y fol l ow li m i ti ng i nstr uctio n s, U nit e d S t a t e s v. Sa nc hez , 615 F.3d 836 , 842 (7th C ir. 201 0) , so th at i ns truct i o n r edu ce s th e r i sk th at th e j ury w oul d consi der the S eptem ber29 ev i dence as pro ofo f M r. G om ez ’s p ro p en sit y t o b e in vo lve d w ith d ru gs . C f. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 479 F.3d 4 9 2 , 5 00 (7th C ir.N o. 12

- 1104 19 20 07 ) ( “[ T] he j ur o r s di d no t r ec ei ve a r el ev an t l i m i ting i ns tructi on, whi chc anmin i m i ze pr ej udi ce fr o m the introd uc tion of R ule 404(b) evide nc e.”)
. Se c on d , a d ist ric t jud ge ab u se s h e r d isc re tio n on ly if n o re as on ab le jud ge w ou ld ag re e w ith th e ru lin g. S mit h v. H unt, 707F.3d 80 3, 80 7-0 8 (7 th C ir. 20 13 ); U ni t e d S t ates v. Ch apm an , 692 F.3d 82 2, 82 7 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); U nited Sta tes v. R eese, 66 6 F .3d 10 07, 10 15 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. Those w ho chal l enge the di str i ct j ud ge’ s evi denti ar y rulings “a re like ric h m en w h o w ish to en te r t h e K i n g d om : th eir pros pects com pare w i th tho se ofcam el s who w i sh to p as s t h ro u gh th e e y e o f th e n ee d le.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wal t on , 21 7 F
. 3d 443, 44 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( quoti ng Agus hi v. D uerr, 19 6 F
. 3d 7 54 , 759 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) )
. A nd we have o fte n s ai d tha t we g ive Rul e 40 3 ba l an cingde ci si o ns ev en w id er be rt h

. U n i t e d S ta tes v. M iller, 68 8 F
. 3d 322, 32 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2) ( “we g i ve ‘ spe ci al d ef er en ce ’ t o the c ou rt ’s fin d in gs u n d er R u le 4 03 ”); U ni t e d S ta t e s v. Hos s e i ni, 67 9 F
. 3d 544, 55 6 ( 7t h C i r. 20 12) ( “W e g i ve speci aldefer ence to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a sse ssm ent o f the b al ance b etween prob at ive val ue and prej ud i ce b ecause that cour t i s i n the best posi ti on to m ak e s u ch ass ess m ents. ”) ( quoti ng U n it ed States v. Hale, 44 8 F
. 3d 97 1, 9 8 5 ( 7t h C ir. 20 06 )); Com m on v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 66 1 F.3d 940 , 946 (7th C ir. 2011) (sam e). W e ca nnot s ay that adm i ssi on o ft h e S eptem ber29 ev i den ce was a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n un derthe se s ta nd ard s. T he govern m en t articulated a reason able, ifa bi t wobbl y, theo ryo fr el evance to a n on -p ropensi ty m att ercent ra lto the pros ecuti on a nd defense . The go ver nm ent prese nted enough evi dence that a fac tfi nd er20 N o. 12

- 1104 coul d decide the c oc ain e found on Se ptem ber29 bel onge d to M r. Gom ez. Evi dence thatwould support an add i ti onali nfe re n c e that M r. Gom ez w as a co nspir ato r w as esp eciall y i m p ortan t in l igh t of M r. Go m ez’s the ory o fde fen se . The di st r i ctc o ur t l i st en ed to e l oqu en t ar g um ent fro m M r. Gom ez’ s co unselco ncer ni ng the r i sk of unfai r prej ud i ce, but ult i m ate l y di sag re ed, adm i tte d the e v i de nc e , a nd g a v e a l i mi t i ngi ns t r uc t i o n t o r e du ce that ri sk.

F To d ay’s deci si on i s no r etr eatfro m wh at w e s ai d l ast y ea r i n U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 673 F.3d 688 ( 7th Cir. 2012): T o differentiate betw een ‘the il legi tim ate u se of a pri or c on victi on t o show propensi ty and the pro per us e o fa pr i o r co nv i ct i o n to pr o ve i nt en t, ’ ‘ th e g o ve r nm ent m ust a ffi rm ati vel y s how wh y a part icul ar pr i o r c o nv i c t i on te nd s t o s ho w the mo r e f o r wa r dl oo ki ng f act ofpurp ose , desi gn, o r vol i ti on t o com m i t the new cri m e. ’
. . . Confusion and m i suse of Rule 404(b) can b e avo i ded byas ki ng the pro secuto r ex ac tly h ow th e p ro ffer ed e v i d en c e s h ou ld w or k in th e mi n d o fa j u r o r t o e s t ab l i s h th e f a c tth e g o v e r nm ent c l ai m s t o be t ry i ng to pro ve. 673 F. 3d at 699 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 38 9 F
. 3d 753, 757- 58 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) )
. The sa m e r eas oni ng a p p l i es re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe uncharge d conduct re sul ted i n a c o nv i ct i o n, r eg ar dl es s o fwhethe r i t was the uncharge d act orthe c h ar ged actthathappened fi rs t, and reg ar dle ss ofthe sta ted non- propensi ty pu rpos e.N o. 12

- 1104 21 N or d o w e re tr ea t a t a ll from w h at w e s a id in U nite d States v. A lbi ola , 624 F.3d 431 , 438 (7th C ir. 2010): Because o fo ur g en er alco ncer ns abo ut the prej ud i ci al nature o fthi s type o f e vidence, we have e m phasi zed that ‘ ther e m ust be a pri nci pled e x er ci se ofdi scr et i o n. T he di s t r i c tj ud g e m ust bo th i de nt i fy the e xc e pti o n tha t appl i es t o the e vi den ce i n que st i o n a nd ev alua te whethe r the e vi den ce , a l th o ug h r el ev an t an d w i thi n the excepti on, i s s uffi ci entl y pr obat i ve to m ak e to l er ab l e th e r i sktha t j ur o r s wi l la cto n the ba si s o f em o ti o n o r a n infer en ce v i a th e bl ac k en i ng of the d efend an t’s cha racter.’ U nited Sta tes v. B eas l ey, 809 F. 2d 1273, 1 27 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87)
. Our r ecentpre ceden t i ndi ca te s t ha t a c o ur t’ s f ai l ur e to c o ns i derthe i m pli cat ion s o fRule 40 4( b) ev i dence befor e a dm i ttin g it m ay be gro u n d s fo r re ve rs al. An a l y s e s s u c h a s th o s e s e tf o r th i n M illera nd A lbi ola i m pr ove the qua l i tyo fr ul i ng s i n the di st r i ctc o ur ts a nd f aci l i tat e r evi ew i n thi s co urt. I t i s what dis tr i ct c ourt s shoul d do; had the dist ri ct cour t done so w ith res p ect to the Se ptem ber29 ev i dence, o ur a nal ysi s co uld have been briefer. St i l l, thi s ca se i s no t M iller, in w hich th e d istri c t c ou rt di dn’ t co nduc t th e Rule 40 3 ba l an cingt es t ata l la nd f ound p robati ve val ue i n the “patte rn” est ablis h ed by a d rug crim e t h a t the d efend an t com m itted eight years ea r l i er . M r . Go m ez’ s unc ha r g ed co nduc t i nv o l ve d the sam e drug, the sam e ho use, and the sa m e ca l endar m ont h . A r e ason able j ud ge cou ld fi nd that the risk ofa propensi ty i nfe re nce di dn ’ t substanti al l y o utw ei gh the no n-pr opensi ty proba ti ve val ue.22 N o. 12

- 1104 N ori s thi s ca se A lbi ola . M r. G o m e z d oe s n otcla im th e di st r ictj udg e i g no r ed th e i m pl i ca ti o ns o fthe Se ptem ber29 ev i dence; he s i m p ly c onte nd s the j ud ge goti t wrong. “Altho ugh the dist ri ct c ourt m i ght ha ve be tt e r e x p l a i n e d th e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d i t s R u l e 4 0 3 c o ncl usi on, i t i s e vi dent to u s th at the c ourt ’ s ul ti m ate re aso n f oradm i tting the ev i dence w as that the pr obati ve v alue was no t si g ni fi ca nt l y o utw eighed b y the pr ej ud icia l im p ac t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor m an , 61 3 F
. 3d 711, 720 (7th Cir. 2010).

II M r . Go m ez a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c al cul atingthe r a ng e r e c o mm e nd e d b y the s e nt e nc i ngg ui del i nes. Th e dist ri ct j ud ge i ncre ase d M r. Gom ez’ s o ffense l eve lbytwo l eve l s for a tt em pted obst ructi on o fj usti ce. U
. S. S. G
. § 3C 1.1. M r. Go m ez con ten d s tha t w as error.

A The enhancem ent s pri ngs fro m M r. G om ez’ s m oti on t o supp re ss sta tem ents he m ade to DE A ag en ts o n Se p te m b er 3 , 2 0 1 0. T h e a ge n ts as ke d M r. G om ez h is nam e, address , and tel ephone num ber, and he p ro vi ded that i nfor m ati on t o them

. M r. Gom ez didn’tte sti fy a t th e s u p p re ss ion h ea r i n g , b u t re lied on h is a ffid av it in w hi ch he sw or e that the ag ents sto pp ed hi m by bl ock i ng his p at h with thei r vehi cl e a s he w al ked near hi s ho m e a bi t a fte r no o n. M r . Go m ez s ai d o ne o fthe a g e n t s g o to u to fth e c a r a n d p o i n t e d a g u n a th i m, te l l i nghi m “do n’ t m o ve , ” l ea vingM r . Go m ez wi ththeN o. 12

- 1104 23 belie ftha t he was no t fr ee t o l ea ve o r r es i stthe a gen t’s com m an d s . M r. Go m ez stat ed , “un d er pe na lty ofperj u ry ,” th at t h e a g en ts se ar c h ed h is w alle t, re m ov ed h is iden tification, an d com m an d ed him t o v erify the i nform ati on o n the i dent ificati on a nd gi ve them hi s t el ep hon e nu m ber. M r. Go m ez said the age nt s the n left the s cene. The two ag ents tes ti fi ed at the hear i ng; th eir te st i m on y w as atod d s w ith M r. G om ez ’s a ffid av it sta tem ent. At th e c l o s e o f th e h e a r i n g, th e c o u r t d e n i e d the s up press i on m ot ion . The j ud ge f ound that the ag ents had us ed a r us e to s to p M r . Go m ez , b utthere w as no th i ng i m properabo ut thei r doi ng so . S peci alA gents Charl es Am el land Enr i que Ca r l to n t es ti fi ed atthe he ar i ng ab o uttheir en co unt erwi thM r . Go m ez , a nd a t th e en d ofthe hear i ng the j ud ge f ound that the o ffi cer s had not ar re ste d M r. Gom ez. The j ud ge cre dit ed the offi cer s’ tes ti m ony that they had not bl oc ked M r. Gom ez’ s path wi th the i r c a r a nd h a dn ’ tdr a wn a nywe a po ns . Ins t e a d, th eyha d e m pl o y ed a r us e, wh ich was pe r m i ss ibl e, a nd h ad a b rie f, con se n su al e n c ou n te r w ith M r. G om ez in whi chthe y c o l l ec te d M r . Go m ez ’ s na m e, a ddr es s, a nd pho ne numbe r . The pho ne numbe r M r. G om ez g av e th e age nts was o ne o fthe num ber s used du ring the co nspir acy. A t the sentenci ng hea ring, M r. Gom ez’ s a tto rneyo bj ecte d to any e nhancem ent forat tem p te d o bstr ucti on of jus tic e, ar gu in g t h a t M r. G om ez h ad giv en h is a ffidavi t nea rl y a ye arafterthe encounterit d escr ibed, that co nfl i ct i ngt es ti m o ny do es n’ t al way s sh o w tha t so m eo ne is com m it t ing p erj ury, and that the law shou ldn ’t pu ni sh a defe nd ant forusi ng the o pp or tuni ty to tes ti fy.24 N o. 12

- 1104 I n resp ons e, th e govern m en t argu ed that M r. Go m ez’s affi davi t was notbas ed on a fa u lty m em or y, but, rath er, was de si g ne d t o pr ev en t th e g o ve r nm en t fr o m us i ngthe ph one numbe r t o t i e hi m t o the c o nspi ra cy re cor dings

. The cour t o ver rul ed the obj ecti on a nd appli ed the tw ol eve lenhancem ent, expl ai ni ng: The cour t fi nd s that ba sed upon the att em pt to re m ov e h im se lf from th e p ar ti c i p a tio n in t h is offense, the defe nd ant di d prese nt a f al se affi d av it w i th an att em pt to esc ap e res ponsibi l i ty f orhi s a cti ons. The co urt fi nd s that the o bstr u c tion ofj usti ce en h an c e m en t is p ro p er an d allow ab le a n d w ou ld d en y the de fense m otion to m od ify the cou rt’s de term i n a t i o n th at th e e n h an c em en t is p ro p er an d w ou ld fi nd thatthe gov er nm ent has sustain ed i ts burden ofexpl ai ni ng to the cou rt and the evi dence sa ti sfi ed th e co ur t th atthe r e was a n a tt empt b y the de fen dan t to es c ap e re sp on sib ility for h is c on d u c t b y th is f al se affi davi t. Se nt. Tr. at16
. B The g ov er nm ent a nd M r. Gom ez appear t o agr ee that perj ury at a s up press i on hea ring am ounts to att em pted o b s t r uc t i o n o fj us t i c e wi thin the me a ni ng o fU. S
. S
. G. § 3 C 1
. 1
. Mr
. G o me z c o mp l a i n s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o mm ents w er e insuffi ci ent t o am ount t o a fi nd i ng ofperj ury. “A d efe n d an t c om m its p e rju r y ‘if sh e g ive s fa lse te st im o ny co nc erni nga mate r i almatt erwi ththe wi l l fulN o. 12

- 1104 25 in tent to provi de f al se tes ti m ony, r atherthan as a res u lt ofc onfusi on, m i sta ke, o r f aul ty m em or y. ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. G rigsby, 6 92 F. 3d 7 78 , 7 85 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2) ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unn igan , 50 7 U.S
. 87, 9 4 (19 93))
. “A f al s e s t a t e men ti s ma t e r i a li fi th a s a n a t ur a lt e nd ency to i nfluence, or i s ca pabl e o fi nfluenci ng, the deci si on o fth e d e c i s i o n - ma k i n gb o d y t o w h i c h i tw a s a d d r e s s e d. The sta tem ent ne ed not actuallyaffe c t t h e d ec isio n .” G rigsby, 69 2 F
. 3d at 785 ( em phasi s in or igin al; quotati on a nd ci tat i on o m i tte d). “F oran obstr ucti on o fj usti ce enhan c e men tt o a pp l y, the g o v e r nme ntmus te s t ab l i sh bya pr epo nde r an ce o f th e ev i den ce tha t th e defen dan t had the s peci fi c i ntent to obs tru ct j usti ce. ” U nited Sta tes v. N urek, 57 8 F
. 3d 618, 62 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. “A d efen d an t ’ s d e libe ra te at te m p t t o m isle ad th e c ou rtim p licate s the b a s i c p ur po s e o fthe o b s t r uc t i o n e nh a nc e ment, w hetheri t o ccurs duri ng a ple a hea ring, a t tr i al, o r at s o me o the r p o i nti n the c r i mi na lp r o c ess . ” G rigsby, 69 2 F. 3d at 785. M r. Gom ez conte nd s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not i den ti fy the s ta te m en t o n whi chthe o bs truct i o n fi ndi ng w as ba se d o r e xpl ain i ts mate r i al i ty
. M r . Go m ez do es n’t d isp u te th e g ov er n m e n t’s co n te n tio n th at sin c e t h e o n ly i ssue M r. Gom ez ra i sed atthe sente nci ng h eari ng was wi l l ful ne ss , thi s co ur t r ev i ews the s uffi ci en cyo fthe fi nd ings w ith resp ect t o the oth er elem en ts of perj ury un de r a p l a i n e r r o r s t a nd a r d. U nite d State s v . G a lb raith , 200 F.3d 1006, 1013 (7th C ir. 2010). This re cor d al l ows no r oo m f or doubt about w hi ch st at ements the s en te nc i ngj udg e ha d i n mi nd. At the26 N o. 12

- 1104 sente nci ng hea ring, the go ver nm ent i denti fi ed two f al se sta tem ents i n M r. Gom ez’ s a ffi davi t: ( 1) thatthe agents pu l l ed thei r vehi cl e o nto the s i dew al k where M r. Gom ez w as w al ki ng to bl ockhi s path, a n d (2 ) one ag ent pul l ed a weapon an d p ointe d i t a t M r. Gom ez. A t the suppressi on hea ring, the cour t e xpli ci tly f ound those st ate
m ents w er e f al se: “[ T]he cour t fi nd s s peci fica ll y that the o ffi cer s’ te sti m ony w as com pel l i ng that t h ey di d not use thei r vehi cl e t o bl ockhi s p ath, they did nothave th ei r wea po ns dr awn. ” S upp. Tr
. a t 76
. Th e g o ve r nm ent al s o e xp l a i ne d a tthe s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ngh o w tho se a ffi d a v i t s s t a t e me nt s w e r e ma t e r i a l : th e t e l e p h o n e n u mbe r tha t woul d ha ve b ee n s uppr es se d was o ne o fthe number s M r . Go m ez us ed dur i ngthe per i o d o fthe c o nspi ra cy and w as i nter cepted o verthe w i re taps. “[ T]o i m pose th e obstr ucti on e nhancem ent, the dist ri ct cour t m ust m ake i nd ependent fi nd i ngs ne cessar y t o es tabl ish all ofthe thr ee f ac tu alpr edi ca te s f o r a fi ndi ng o fpe rj ur y (f al se t es ti m o ny, mate r i al i ty, a nd wi l l ful i nt en t)
. . . . I fthe c o ur t f ai l s to ad d ress ea che l ement cl ea r l y, the e nha ncem en t wi l lwi th st an d s cr ut i ny i fthe co ur t m ak es a fi ndi ngtha t en co m pas se s al lo fthe fac tu alpre dica tes f orthe fi nd i ng o fperj ury. ” U ni t ed St at e s v. Sa vage, 505 F. 3d 754, 763 (7th Cir
. 2007) ( quotati on an d citation om itted ). The cour t found at the se ntenci ng heari ng tha t M r . Go mez h a d t e nd e r e d a f a l s e a ffi da v i ti n a n a t t e mpt “to r em ove hi m sel ffro m part i ci pati on in thi s o ffense” and “t o es ca pe r es po ns ibi l i ty f o r hi s ac ti o ns . ” S en t. Tr. at 16. The co urt al so f ound that the go ver nm en t hadN o. 12

- 1104 27 “sust ai ned i ts burden” o fpoi nti ng to ev i dence es tabl i shi ng tha t M r. Gom ez’ s s ub m i ssi on o fthe f al se affi davi t s up port ed an o bstr ucti on o fj usti ce e nhancem en t. Se n t. T r. at16 . “W h en re a d in c on te x t a n d in t h eir enti re ty, the cour t’s r em ar ks on the appli cati on f or th e ob st ru c tio n e n h an c em en t c ontain an im p licit fi nd i ng tha t [ M r. Gom ez] i ntended t o obstructthe pros ecuti on. That i s e nough to sust ai n t h e tw o- l eve lenhancem ent. ” U nited Sta tes v. N urek, 57 8 F
. 3d 618, 62 4 (7th C ir. 20 09 ); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa vage, 50 5 F
. 3d 754, 764 (7t h C i r. 20 07) ( “The l ack ofm or e pr eci se fi nd i ngs on the enhancem en t doe s no t warr ant r em and fo r resen ten cing.”). T he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t M r . Go m ez’ s affi davi t statem ents w er e f al se and w er e intended to affect th e o utcom e o fthe case wasn’t cl ear l y e rr oneo us, and M r . Go mez h a s n’ ts ho wn a nye r r o r tha ta ffe cted hi s s ubstan ti alr i ghts orse ri ousl y a ffecte d the f ai rnes s or int eg rit y of t h e p ro c e e d i n gs . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 663 F.3d 265, 268 (7th Cir. 2011).

III Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tdi dn ’ tab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n a dm i tt i ngthe S ept embe r 2 9 ev i den ce unde r Rul e 40 4(b) a nd d idn ’t com m it plain error in en ha nc ing M r. Go m ez’s o f f e ns e l e v e lf o r a t t e mp t e d o b s t r u c t i o n o fj u s t i c e . We affir m M r. G om ez ’s c on vic tio n an d h is s en te n c e. A FFI RMED .28 N o. 12

- 1104

A ltho ugh I woul d re ver s e the c onvi c t i ons an d re m and for 1 a ne w t r i a l , I a gr e e wi th the m aj or i t y tha t the di s t r i c tcourt di d notm ake a pl ai n e rr or b y im pos i ng the e nha nc em en t f or obs t ru c t i on ofj us t i c e i n c al c ul at i ng the appl i c abl e Se nten cing G u id eline s. H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e . I re spe ct ful l y di ss en t. The e nt i r e p a ne la g r e e s tha tt wo o fthe thr e e g r o un ds the di str i ct c ourtr el i ed upon to adm i t the Rul e 4 04(b) ev i den ce a r e wi th o utmer i t. The r emai ni ngg r o und o ffe r e d t o s u p p o r ti t s a d mi s s i o n wa s s o we a kth a twe can no l onge r saythatadm i ssi on w as a sound exer ci se ofd isc reti on. The m aj or i ty sta tes the appli cabl e l aw co r r ec tly i n gen er alt er m s, b utunde r Rul e 40 4(b) , the n u b o ft h e m at te r lies in s p ec ific a p p lica tio n s. I w ou ld re ve rs e a n d rem an d for a n ew tria l. 1 D efe n d a n t G om ez w as ch ar ge d w ith p ar tic ip at in g in a fi ve- m onth- l ong conspi ra cy to dist ribute seve ra l kilogr am s o fco cai ne, with del i ver i es of ro ughl y 2 50 to 500 gr am s e ac h . Th e d eliv er ies w e n t f ro m C h ica go to a M ilw au ke e res i dence thatGom ez and seve ra lo ther peopl e s hare d. The go vern m en t’ s e vi dence fro m te l ephone i nter cepts provi ded st ro ng evid en ce a gainst whoev erwas s pea k i ngo n the tel eph o ne a s “Gue r o . ” The qu e s t ion i s w ho w as G ue ro? Th e govern m en t’s theory i s that Gom ez w as Gu er o, wh i l e Gom ez m ai ntai ns that Gu er o w as probabl y Vi cto r Reyes

— a m an wh o al so l i ved atthe M i l w aukee r esi dence. T o h elp sh ow th at G om ez w as th e o n e i n vo lve d in the c onspi ra cy, t h e g ove rnm ent o ffer ed the Rule 404(b) evi dence: that j ust 14 gr am s of coca i ne w er e i n a c lothesN o. 12

- 1104 29 pocketi n Gom ez’ s be droo m near l y fou r w eek s a fter the end of the charg ed conspi ra cy. This evi dence h ad vir tu ally n o ge n u in e p ro b at ive va lu e a n d w as u n fair ly prej ud i ci al

. Ever y theo ryf ori ts adm i ssi on e i ther dis s o l v e s u po n s c r ut i nyo r r e du c e s t o a p ur e p r o pens i ty th e o r y . T h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e wa s r i g h tth e fi r s tt wo ti m es w hen he r ule d that the g ov er nm ent had not yetsho w n gr ounds f oradm itt ing i t, o nce be f or e t ri al an d on c e d u rin g t ria l. The fi rs t ti m e the gov er nm ent offer ed th e e vid ence i n tr i al, the dist ri ct j ud ge i nd i cate d that the d efense had o pened the prove rbi al door to the evi dence b y p ointi ng o ut i n cr oss - exam i nati on that the go ver nm ent had no e vi dence showingthatGom ez w as i n posse ssi on ofany coca i ne duri ng the char ged co nspir acy. That w as the c onte xt o fthe j ud ge’ s co m m ent that the def e ns e ha d o pe ne d the do o r b y i mpl y i ng tha tthe defen dan t w as “p ur e as the ne w f al l ens no w. ” The m ajorit y g en tly ca l l s t h e re m ar k “ in felic ito u s.” It cle ar ly in d icate s a n i ncl i nati on t oward propensi ty that i s pro hibi ted by Rule 40 4( b)

. Yet the di str i ct j ud ge re fused to a dm i t th e ev i den ce a t th attim e be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t ha d no t y eto ffer ed su ffi ci en t ev i den ce tha t the userquanti ty ofco cai ne i n th e p ocket actual l y b el onge d to Gom ez. The di str i ct c ourtwas not tr oubl ed at that po i nt b y t he l ac ko fa l eg i ti m at e pur po se . Butthe m aj or i ty re cogni zes thati t w ou ld have a l so been er ro r to ad m it th e e vid en c e a t t h is p o i n t fo r th e la c k of a legit im at e R ule 404 ( b) r ea so n t o a dm i t i t, s l i p o p. a t 8, a nd on thi s point, Iag re e.30 N o. 12

- 1104 The g o ve r nm en t ev en tu al l y cur ed th is i ns uffi ci en t e v i de nc e pr o b l e m ( o r a t l e a s t the di s t r i c t j ud g e di d not cl ear l y e rrbyfi nd i n g that the ev i dence ofthe l ate r posses si on o fthe userquanti ty w as suffi ci ent)
. W hen the g ove rnm ent a gain offer ed the e vidence, the district cou rt tri ed to i d en tify l egitim ate R ule 404(b) p urpo se s. The c o ur t ac ce pte d the g o ve r nm en t’ s vague a r g um en ts a nd i den ti fi ed th r ee no n- pr o pen si tyus es f o r the evi dence: i denti ty, abs ence ofm i sta ke, and knowle dge. The maj o r i tye xpl ains c o r r ec tly, i n my v i ew, tha t th e Rule 404(b) ev i dence her e had nothi ng t o do w i th ab se nc e o fmis ta k e orkno wl edg e. S l i p o p. a t 10

- 11
. The abse nce- of

- m i sta ke theo rywas w ro n g preci sel y b ecause i t was rea ll y a pr o pen si tythe o r y i n di sgui se . The coca i ne co u ld r ebut the i dea thatthe gov er nm ent was m i sta ken about G om ez onlybysho w i ng tha t he has a pr o pe ns i t y t o wa r d inv o l v e men twi th c o c a i ne . S l i p o p. at 11. A nd i n any eve nt, the abse nce-of-m i sta ke theo ry fo r Rule 404(b) ev i dence r efer s t o the absence o f a m i stake o n the parto fthe de f e ndan t, no t th e g o ve r nm ent inv esti gat or s. The kno w l edge theor y o fadm i ssi on w as ne ver d evelop ed and has n o real bas is h ere. So the m aj or ity a nd Iag re e that tw o ofthe thre e g r o u n d s g i v e n b y th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o r e x e r c i s i ng i ts disc re ti on t o adm i t the ev i dence w er e in f act er ro neous. The only re m ai ni ng l eg ofthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s no w unstabl e three

- l egg ed stool f oradm i tting thi s e vi dence i s that i t t ended to s how i denti ty

— that G om ez w as th e vo i ce o f“ Guer o ” i n the t elephone i nt er ce pts
. The m aj or i ty describes the chai n ofi nfe re nces to show i denti ty as “not parti cul ar l y c om pel l i ng. ” S l i p op. at18
.N o. 12

- 1104 31 That’ s a n und er sta tem en t. The i denti ty ra ti onal e for ad m itt in g t h e u se r q u an tit y e vid en c e is its elf jus t a th in vei lo verwh at i s r eally j u st propensi ty evi dence. N ei ther the di str i ct c ourt, the go ver nm ent, northe m aj or i ty has a rt i cul ate d that c hai n ofi nfe re nces i n a pe rs uasi ve w ay that does not i ncl ud e s heerpro pensi ty. T h is use h as th e s am e fla w as th e a b se n c e-o f-m ist ak e th eo ry . I t boi l s down to a pu re pro pensi ty theo ry . The bestar gum ent that c an be m ade for th e d i str i ct co ur t’ s admi ss ion of th e ev i den ce i s th atthe c o ca i ne w as foun d i n a h o us e assoc iated w ith one of th e intercepted te l ephones use d i n ar ra ngi ng c ocai ne del i ver i es rath er than i n an un related l oca t io n . T he l ogic app ears to b e th atb ec au se G om ez po ss es se d the c o ca i ne i n a h ou se as so c iat ed w ith th e c on sp ira c y ra th er t h a n in a n un r e l a t e d l o c a t i o n, the f a c to fp o s s e s s i o n beco m es pr o ba ti ve o fi den ti tyr athe r tha n m er e pr o pen si ty
. The m aj or i ty see m s t o ad op t thi s di stincti on wh en i t r eco gnizes tha t po ss es singc o ca i ne a t th e sa m e ti m e i n a loc at ion rem ov ed from th e c on sp ira c y w o u l d te ll a j u ro r n ot h in g a b ou t w h et h er G om ez w as inv olv ed in the c onspi ra cy. S l i p op. at14
. The probl em is thatthe userquanti ty ofco cai ne di sco ver ed al m ostf our w eek s l ate r si m plyhas not been l i nked t o the e a r l i e r di s t r ib ut i o n c o ns pi r a c y b ya ny thi ng e xc e pt that l oca ti on. Forthe sak e o far gum ent, o ne ca n specul ate that perhaps the userquanti ty w as a l eftov erfro m an ear l i erdel i ver y, but the s am e co u ld b e sai d ofany user qu a n t i t y . P o s s e s s i o n o fth i s s ma l lqu a n t i t y s a y s n o th i ng proba ti ve about w hether the posse sso r had a ny role in32 N o. 12

- 1104 th e ups tr ea m l ar g e- sc al e di stribut i o n c o ns pi r ac y . W i th

o uta c lose r l i nkb etwee n the us erqua nt i tyi n the pocketand the ear l i erco nspir acy, the onl y infe re nce that coul d be m ade to sugg estthatGom ez ra therthan Vict orReye s was o n the phone cal l s i s that i t was Gom ez beca usehe was inv ol ved i n so m e way with d ru gs . Th is is a p u r e p ro p en sit y in fer en c e t h at R u le 404(b) f orbi ds. A per son’ s p os ses si on o fa sm al luser qua nt i tyo fc o ca i ne pr o vi des no us efuli nf o r m at i o n abo ut th at per so n’ s i nv o l ve m en t i n l ar g e- sc al e di st r ibut i o n, except thro ugh the prohibi ted i nfe re nce o fpro pensi ty. Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 471 F.3d 802 ( 7th Cir. 2006), disc ussed i n the m aj or i ty opi ni on, is a g oo d exam ple o f w h en e vi dence ofo theri nvol vem ent with drugs m ay be pr obat i ve ofi denti ty w i thout depend in g on p ro pensi ty in fer ences, but i t i s r eadi l y di stingui shabl e o n dec i si ve g r o unds

. Br o wn’ s defen se a t tr i alwas tha t he did notkno w the sel l erfro m wh om h e w as char ged w ith bu yin g d ru gs an d th at th e p olic e h ad m ist ak en ly id en tifie d h im . Th e p ro se c u tio n u se d R u le 4 04 (b ) ev id en c e o fBro w n’s pri ordrug deal i ngs w ith the sam e seller to show that the i denti fi cati on o f B row n w as cor re ct. This use o f o th erdrug acti vi ty w as proba ti ve of id e n tit y b ec au se it sh ow ed th at B ro w n h ad ac tu ally dea l t wi ththe pe r so n h e cl ai m ed to ha ve no th i ng to do w i th. The drug acti vi ty showed thatB ro w n had a drug- deal i ng r el ati onshi p w ith the sel l erand al l owed the j ury to draw an in fer ence ofi denti ty base d on Br o wn’ s r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th th e s e l l e r r a th e r th a n the m or e g ener alf act that Brown had so m e e ar li eri nvol veme n twi th i l l e g a ld r u g s . T h e r e i s n o c o mpa r ab l e l i nkN o. 12

- 1104 33 be twe enthe us erqua nt i tyo fc o ca i ne h ere a nd the ch ar g ed o ffen se s o r the i ss ue o fi den ti fi ca ti o n. This w oul d be a ver y di ffer ent c ase i fthe pol i ce had f o und in Go m ez ’ s room a l ar g erqua nt i tyo fc o ca i ne sui tabl e o nl y fordi str ibuti on, o r i fth ey had f ound other evi d en ce t i ed to di st r ibut i o n, s ucha s sc al es , pa ck ag i ng m ate ri a l, e t c . Wi th s uc h e v i de nc e fr o m a l a t e r s e a r ch i ndi ca tingtha t Gomez was i nv o l ve d i n c o ca i ne distrib uti on a t the l oca ti on wh er e the l ar ge- scal e deliv er i es had been m ade, the chai n ofi n fer en c es to show identi ty woul d b e m uchs ho r te r a nd mor e r ea so nabl e an d woul d no t depe nd s o l ely o n pr o pen si ty. ( I n f ac t, the po l i ce di d f i nd di st r ibut i o n mat er i al s atthe ho us e, b ut they w er e i n so m eone el se’ s be droo m . That e vi dence co ul d no t be l i nk ed to Go m ez . ) W i th o uta c l ea r erl i nk to c o ca i ne di st r ibut i o n, a s o pposed to mer e us e, the R u le 404 (b ) ev id en c e us ed ag ain st G om ez w as s i m p ly too te nuous and too prej ud i ci alto adm i t. T he m aj ority correctly p oints ou t tha t w e ap p ly a d eferen ti als ta nda r d o fr ev i ew t o Rul e 40 4( b) q ue st i o ns a nd th e r e l at ed R u le 4 03 ba lan c in g in q u iry , ask in g on ly whe the r the di s t r i c tc o ur tab us e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y a dm i tt i ngthe e vi den ce . In thi s tr o ubl es o m e ar ea ofthe l aw , however, we have e m p h as ized thatwe need to se e “a pri nci ple d exerc i se ofdi scr eti on” by the di str i ct c ourt
. U nite d States v. A lbi ola , 624 F.3d 431 , 438 (7th C ir. 2010 ) , quoting U nited S ta tes v. B easley, 80 9 F
. 2d 1273 , 1279 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) ( re ver si ng co nvi cti on s a ffecte d by Rule 404(b) ev i dence)

. The m aj or i ty and Iag re e that tw o ofthe thre e g ro und s g i ven bythe dist ri ct c ourtf or34 N o. 12

- 1104

ex er c isin g its d isc re tio n to a d m it th e e vid en c e w er e in f ac te r r o ne o us . Whe n t wo o fthe thr e e g r o un ds r el i ed upo n fo r a dm i ss i o n c o l l aps e unde r min i m als cr ut i ny an d the c o ur t ha s di ffi cul tya rticul at i nga b as i s f o r the thi rd, thato ught t o be a st ro ng si gnalthatth e d i str i ct cou rt’s exerci s e o f d iscretion w as no t sou nd

. M oreover, w h en th e d ist ric t c ou rtfa ils to sh ow th at it en ga ge d in the Rul e 4 03 bal anci ng i nquiry

— he r e no t m en ti o ni ng the word “pr ej ud i ce” eve n once

— the re cor d does n o ts h o w a s o und e x e r c i s e o fd i s c r e t i o n t o wh i c h we sh ou ld d efer. Inan effo rtto m in im ize th e p rej u d i c e fro m th e e vid en ce, the m aj ority al so reli es o n t he district cou rt’s lim itin g in st ru c tio n . Th e c ou rtto ld th e jur y it c ou ld consi de r th e l ate r disc ove ryo fthe userquanti ty of coca i ne o nl y “on t he questi on o fi denti ty, abs ence ofm ist ake o r acci dent, and knowle dge. ” As a g ener al m at te r, o ne c anque st i o n h o w use fuls uch lim iti ngi nstr uc tions are w he n a j ury m ight easily sli d e tow ard the forbi dd en pro pensi ty i nfe re nce in i ts use o f Rule 4 04 ( b) ev i dence. S ee gener al l y B ruto n v . U nited Sta tes , 39 1 U.S
. 12 3, 13 5 ( 1968 ) (lim i ti ng i nstr ucti on cou ld n o t cu re prob lem s p resen ted by d efend an t’s inabili ty to cross-ex am ine d ecla ran t w he n co-d efend an t’s c on fes sio n is a d m itt ed ; “th er e a re so m e c on te x ts in w hi ch the ris k th at the j ury w i l lnot, o r cannot, f ol l ow instru ctions i s so great, an d th e con seq ue nc es of f ail ure so vi tal to the defe nd ant, that the pract i calan d h um an lim ita tio n s o f th e ju ry sy st em ca n n otbe ign or ed ”). In f act, the advi sory no te to Ru le 40 3 exp re ssl y instr uctsN o. 12

- 1104 35

cour ts to consi der “ the pr ob abl e e ffecti venes s o r l ack of e ffec tiv en es s o f a lim itin g in st ru c tio n .” I t i s t rue that i n Rule 40 4(b ) cas es, we have o ften tr usted the effecti venes s o f lim i ti ng i nstr ucti ons, tho ugh w i thout necess ar i l y gi vi ng the questi on cl ose em pir i cal a t t e n tio n . E.g
. , U nited Sta tes v. D enberg, 2 1 2 F
. 3 d 9 8 7, 99 4 ( 7th C ir. 2000) ( “thi s co urt has hel d m any t i m es tha t l i mi t i ng i ns t r uc t i o ns a r e e ffe c t i v e i n r e du ci ng o r el i m i nati ng anyposs ibl e unf ai r prej ud i ce fro m i ntro
d uc tion of R ule 404(b) evide nc e,” and coll ectin g cases ); see al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vargas , 55 2 F.3 d 550, 55 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 531 F.3d 496, 500 (7th C ir. 2008 ). I n f act, however, ther e i s g oo d rea son to questi on the e ffecti venes s o fl i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons w h en i t co m es to Rule 4 04 (b) ev i dence, part i cul ar l y in a c ase l i ke thi s. So ci alsci ence experi m ents usi ng m oc k j uror s fi nd that j u r o rs are m ore l ikel y to conv ict w he n th ey ha ve h eard evi dence ofa pri orc onvi cti on a nd thatl i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons ar e o ften ineffecti ve at gui ding j uror s’ use of such evi de n ce. E .g ., E d ith G re en e & M ar y D od ge , The Inf l ue nc eof Pr i orRe co r d Evi de nc eon JurorD e cis i on M aki ng, 19 L. & H um . Behav. 67, 76 -77 (1 995) ( fi nd i ng tha t j udg e’ s l i m i tingi ns truct i o ns wer e i ne ffecti ve i n gui di ng j ur o rs’ u se o fpr i o r r ec o r d e vi den ce , a nd c o l l ec ting pr i o r r e s e a rch r e a c hings i mi l a rc o nc l us i o ns ) ; Ke r r iL. P ick el, Ind uc ing Juro rs t o D isrega rd In a dm issible E vid ence: A Legal Exp lanation D oes N ot Help , 1 9 L. & Hum. Be hav. 407 ( 1995 ) ( fi nd i ng v ar i ed j urorr esponse s t o l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons, i ncl ud i ng i nstr ucti ons w here expl anati on “ back

-36 N o. 12

- 1104 fire d ”); se e a lso J. A lex an d er T an for d , The Law an d P sychology of Jury Ins t r uc t i ons , 69 N eb. L. Rev. 71 , 86

- 87 ( 1990 ) (citing earli er exp erim en ts th at “all sh ow sim il ar results”); A m os T ve rs ky & D an iel K ah n em an , Judg m e ntU nder U nc ertain ty: Heuristics a nd B ia ses , 1 8 5 S c i
. 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 4- 25 (19 74 ) (co n c lu d i n g t h at ind ivid u als d o n otp ro p er ly adj us t th ei r p r o b ab i l i t y e s t i ma t es upo n r ec ei vi ng new i nfo rm ati on, es peci al l y when or i gi nali nfo rm ati on re sem bl es iss u e in questi on)
. Par ti cul ar l y t ro ubl i ng f or th i s ca se a r e stu di es tha t sh o w j ur o r s ar e es pec i al l y i nflu en c ed by ev id en c e of ot h er ba d ac ts th at res em b le th e c as e b efo re th em . Se e Joe l D . L ieb er m an & Jam ie A rndt, U nd erstan din g th e Lim its of Li m iting Instruc tio ns: Social Psychological Ex planations f or the Fail ure s of Inst ructi ons t o D is regard P re tr ial P ubli city a n d O ther Inadm is si ble E vidence, 6 P s y c ho l

. P ub

. P ol ’ y & L
. 677, 686-87 (2000), c itin g R . L . W iss ler & M . J. Sa ks , O n theIne f f i ca cyof Li m i t i ng Ins t r uc t i ons , 9 L. & Hum. Behav. 37 ( 1985 )
. Li m i ti ng i n st ru c ti ons w or k b estwh en the i nstr ucti ons ar ouse j ur o r s’ s us p i ci o ns a s to the pr o bl ems wi thc o ns i der i ng such evi dence ( e . g. , re liab ility ). Id

. at68 8. Thi s r e s e a r c h ab o utl i mi t i ngi ns t r uc t i o ns i n g e nera l and Ru l e 4 04(b) l i m i ti ng i ns tr u c ti ons i n part i cul ar shoul d at l eas t m ak e us cauti ous about pu tting to o mu c h c o n fi d e n c e i n th o s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . A ta min i mu m, though, f orl i m i ti ng i nstru c tions to work the j ury m ust be abl e t o und er sta nd the i nstr uct ion . To re turn t o the s pe c ific probl em s in thi s ca se, the l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on the c o ur t g a v e wa s s ur e l y a c o nfus i ng mys t e r y t o th e j ur y . The maj o r i tya nd Ia g r ee tha t t w o-thi r ds o fthe i nstr ucti on was si m plywrong. The Rul e 4 04(b) ev i denceN o. 12

- 1104 37 had no r el evance to any su pp ose d absence o fm i sta ke or to Gom ez’ s know l edge. Even the i denti ty theo rythat th e m ajorit y u se s t o s alv ag e th is c on vic tio n w as its elf “not parti cul ar l y c om pel l i ng” a n d i nvi ted the pro hibi ted propensi ty i nfe re nce. W e have sai d that a goo d t est for Rule 404(b ) e vid ence i s t o see i fthe dist ri ct j ud ge can actual l y e xplain i ts perm i ssibl e u se w i thout l eani ng o n sh ee r p ro p en sit y. U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 673 F. 3d 688, 70 1- 02 ( 7th Ci r . 20 12 )
. W he r e th e di st r i ct j udge, th e pr o se cuti o n, a nd the maj o r i tyha ve ha d s o much t r o ubl e ar ti culat in g h ow t h e R u le 4 04 (b ) ev id en c e re lat ed to th e le git im ate i ssue ofi denti ty, we shoul d n ot a ssum e that j urors w ou ld h ave m an aged to do so. U nd er thes e circumst an ce s, we sh o ul d n ot t ak e an y c o m f o r t fr o m the us ua ll i m i tingi ns truct i o n. I n h i s co m m en ts on the Rul e 40 4(b) e vi den ce , the di st r i ctj udg e si m pl y ne ve r c ame t o gri ps wi thho w the p resen ce of a user qu an tity o f coc aine in G om ez’s ro om n ea rly fou r w ee ks aft er th e e n d o ft h e larg e-s c ale di st r ibut i o n c o ns pi r ac y made hi s par ti ci pat i o n in the consp ira c y a ny m or e l i kel y without r el yi ng o n gene ra l pr o pen si ty
. Iwoul d fi nd tha t th e admi ssi on ofthe Rul e 40 4(b) ev i den ce was a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n a nd w ou ld rev er se an d rem an d for a n ew tria l.

4- 5- 13