FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 13 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 02 60 -KOB-HGD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us GEORGE W ILLIAM WH EELER, a.k .a. Ch i Ch i, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 5 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Geo rg e Wheel er ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on foron e co un t o f co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ),84 6. He co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d e vi de nc e und er Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ). Whe el er al so ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of h is Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 2 9 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on . Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. Whe el er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d e vi de nc e und er Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ), na m el y W il l an d Dem etriu s Hi ne s’ tes ti m on y co nc ern in g h is parti ci pa ti on ina pr io r m ari juan a tr an sa ct io n. Th e Hin es bro th ers te st ifi edth atin20 08 Whe el er was fro nt ed30 0– 35 0 p ou nd s o f m ari juan a fro m

a Mex ic ansupp li er, wit h t he ob li ga ti on to pa y foritlat er. Whe n Whee le r was un ab le to pa y

forth e m ari

juan a, W il l Hi ne s p ai d t he supp li er $ 10 0,0 00 owedby Whe el er. Whe el er as se rts th atth e Hin es bro th ers ’ te st im on y was i m pr op erl y adm it te d b ecau se it s p reju di ci al im pa ctou twei gh edit s p ro ba ti ve va lu e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S tate s v . Bowe , 22 1 F .3d11 83 , 11 92 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Ru le 40 4( b) pr ov id es th atev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es , wron gs , or a ct s i s n otadm is si bl e to pro ve a de fen da nt ’s cha ract er “ in ord er t o s ho w act io n i n c on fo rm ity th erewi th .” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Thatev id en ce “ m ay , ho wev er, b e adm is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , 2su chas p ro of of m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p lan, kno wled ge , id en ti ty, orab se nc e o f m is take or a cci de nt .” Id
. Inord er fo r ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es to be adm is si bl e, th ree co nd it io ns m

us t b e m et : (1 ) “ th e ev id en ce m us t b e rel ev an t t o a n i ss ue ot he r th an th e d efen da nt ’s cha ract er”; (2) “ th e ev id en ce m us t b e su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a fin di ng th atth e d efen da ntactua ll y co m m it te d t he ex tri ns ic act ”; an d (3 ) “ th e pr ob at iv e v al ue of t he ev id en ce m us t n otbe subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby unf

ai r pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d S tate s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3d13 14 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng th e ch al le ng ed Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. Fi rs t, b y pl ead in g n otgu il ty to the co ns pi racy char ge , Whe el er m ad e h is in te nta m at eri al is su e in th e cas e. See Un it edSta te s v . McNai r, 60 5 F .3d11 52 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ Inev ery co ns pi racy case , a no t g ui lt y pl ea ren de rs th e d efen dant ’s in te nta m at eri al is su e.” (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) ). Seco nd , th e Hin es bro th ers ’ te st im on y co nc ern in g Whee le r’s pa rti ci pa ti on ina pr io r m ari juan a tr an sa ct io n p ro vi de d asu ffi ci en t b as is forth e jury to fi ndth atWhe el er ac tu al ly comm it te d the actinqu es ti on . See Bo we, 22 1 F.3 d a t 1 19 2 (“ Inth is cir cu it , th e unc orro bo rat edwordof a n a cco m pl ic e . . . pr ov id es a su ffi ci en t b as is forco nc lu di ng th atth e d efen da ntco m m it te d e xt rin si c act s ad m is si bl e und er Ru le 40 4( b) .”). 3Fi na ll y , th e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e ev id en ce was no t o utweig he d b y un fai r pr ejud ic e. “ [W] he th er the pro ba ti ve va lu e o f Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce o utweig hs it s pr ejud ic ia l ef

fectde pe nd s upo n t he cir cum st an ces of t he ex tri ns ic off en se .” Uni te d S tate s v . Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 45 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d)
. Rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces in cl ud e “ ov eral l s im il ari ty betweenth e ex tri ns ic actan d th e ch arg edoff

en se , as wel l as tem

po ral rem ot en es s.” Un it edSta te s v . Jerni ga n, 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Alth ou gh Whe el er’s
ex tri ns ic actin vo lv edm ari juan a in st eadof c oc ai ne , th e ci rcu m st an ces of t ha t ac t
an d t ho se of t he ch arg edoff en se ex hi bi t n um ero us si mil ari ti es . The s im il ari ti es in cl ud e n eg ot ia ti on forth e p ur ch as e o f na rco ti cs ; a t ran sa ct io n i nv ol vi ng a la rg er am ou ntof n arco ti cs th anwou ldbe cu st om ary fo r pe rs on al us e; paym en t o f th ou sa nd s o f do ll ars incas h; an d t he pre se nc e o f Whe el er’s y ou ng so n i n t he car. The ev id en ce was als o p ro ba ti ve be cau se th e ex tri ns ic actoc cu rredles s tha n t wo y ears be fo re the ch arg edco ns pi racy andth us was n otto o re m ot e fo r pr op er co ns id erat io n. See Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 5– 46 (two y ear t im e sp andi d n ot ren de r th e ex tri ns ic act s t oo rem ot e fo r pr op er co ns id erat io n) . Mor eo ve r, an y un fai r pr ejud ic e th atm ay ha ve ex is te d was m it ig at edby the li m it in g i ns tru ct io n th atth e d is tri ctco urt g av e to th e jury. See Un it edSta te s v . Dura n, 5 96 F.3d12 83 ,

412 98 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e 4 04 (b ) ev id en ce. 1 II. Whe el er al so arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is Fed . R. Cri m . P. 29 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Whe el er m ad e h is Ru le 29 m ot io n a fte r th e g ov ern m en t re st edit s ca se , bu t fa il edto ren ew th e m ot io n a fte r he pre se nt ed hi s ca se . Becaus e Wheel er d idno t re ne w hi s m ot io n a t the clo se of t he ev id en ce, we m ay rev ers e h is co nv ic ti on on th e g ro un d o f in su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce

“ on ly to p rev en t a m an ife stm is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bur st on , 15 9 F.3 d 1 32 8, 1 33 2 n .5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The “ m an ife st
m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” s ta nd ardrequi res “ a fi nd in g t ha t the ev id en ce o n ake y el em en t o f th e o ffen se is so ten uo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng .” Uni te d St at es v. Ham

bl in , 91 1 F .2d55 1, 5 57 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (quo tati on m ark s
Wheeler a sserts that the district cour t improperly

admitted Robert Tre adwe ll’s 1 testimony under Rule 404(b). Trea dwell testified that he ove rhea rd Wheeler

discussing de tails of the cha rg ed off ense w ith W ill Hines, while all three w ere incar cer ated in the Morg an County jail. Rule 404(b) only

applies to evidenc e that is “e x trinsic” to the cha rg ed off ense. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344. Be cause it related to the c harg ed off ense, Tr eadw ell’s testimony fell outside the scope of Rule 404(b). F urther, a s set forth below, the re w as over whelmingevidenc e of Wheeler’ s guilt. Thus, any err or in admitting Tr eadw ell’s testimony was ha rmless. See United States v. Gamory , 635 F.3d 480, 492 ( 11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “[w]here a District Court abuses its discre tion in admitt ing e vidence , we may still find the er

ror ha rmless”); United States v. Be lfast, 611 F.3d 783, 816 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (“[W] here an er ror ha d no substantial influence on the outcome, a

nd sufficie nt evidence uninfec ted by err or supports the ver dict, reve rsal is not war rante d.” (quotation marks omitted)). 5om itte d) . In m ak in g tha t d et erm in at io n, we v ie w “ th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t, drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces inth e Gov ern m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Fris ke , 64 0 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
.

“ To s us ta in a co nv ic ti onforco ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , th e g ov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t (1 ) anil le ga l ag reem en t ex is te d; (2) th e d efen da ntkn ew of it ; an d (3 ) th e d efen dant , with kn owl ed ge , vo lu nt ari ly j oi ne d i t.” Un it edSta te s v . Hern an de z, 43 3 F .3d13 28 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo tati on m ark s o mitte d) . “ [A] com m on pu rp os e an d p la n m ay be in ferr edfro m

a de ve lo pm en t an d c ol lo cat io n o f ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d St at es v. Mc Dowel l, 2 50 F.3d13 54 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . “ Altho ug h m ere p res en ce atth e sc en e o f a cri m e is in su ffi ci en t t o supp ort a c on sp ira cy

co nv ic ti on , pre se nc e n on ethe le ss is a pr ob at iv e fac to r whi ch th e jury m ay

co ns id er i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a d efen da ntwas akn owi ng an d in te nt io na l p art ic ip an t i n acri m in al sch em e.” Hern an de z, 43 3 F .3dat 1 33 3 (quo tati onm ark s o m itte d)
. Here, the re was am

pl e ev id en ce tha t Wheel er kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y pa rti ci pa te d i n t he ch arg edco ns pi racy. Whe el er m etwith ago ve rn m en t i nf orm an t
an d a n a ll eg edco -co ns pi rat or on m or e th anon e o ccas io n t o a rran ge a sa le of

6co cai ne . Duri ng th os e m eet in gs , Whe el er b arg ai ne d o ve r bo th th e p ric e an d

qu an ti ty of th e co cai ne . On th e ag reedup on da y of the trans act io n, Wheel er dro ve to th e d el iv ery lo cat io n, i ns pe ct edth e co cai ne , andth enlef t t o o bt ai n t he pu rch as e m on ey fro m hi s p ro sp ect iv e b uyers. Wheel er re tu rn edto th e d el iv ery lo cat io n se ve ral ho ur s l at er wi th a po rti onof t he m on ey , exp la in in g t ha t h is bu y ers want ed to in sp ectth e co cai ne be fo re p ay in g t he ful l am ou nt . Altho ug h Whee le r te st ifi edth athe di d n otin te ndto buy th e co cai ne , th e jury w as free to di sc red ithi s t es ti m on y an d c on si de r itas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . “ W e h av e rec og ni zedth ata st at em en t b y a de fen da nt , if d is be li ev edby th e jury, m ay

be co ns id eredas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t.” Uni te d S tate s v . McDo well , 25 0 F .3d13 54 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . All is on , 90 8 F .2d15 31 , 15 35 (11 th Cir
. 19 90 ) (“ The jury m ay

vi ew [a] defe nd an t’s fa ls e ex pl an at ory st at em en t as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce p ro vi ng gu il t.”) . Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e v erd ic t, we co nc lu de th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt Whe el er’s co nv ic ti on . Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm Whe el er’s co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

7