Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50132

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , ve r s us B R A N D O N RAYC H A N D L E R , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o . 7 : 0 8
- CR- 1 2 6
- ALL

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, SM ITH an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . JE R R YE . SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e: *
B ran don C h an dl er (“ C h an dl er” ) app eal s hi s c on vi ct i on s of m ak i n g a fal se st atem en tt o a ban k, ban k f rau d, a n d agg ravated i den t i t y t h ef t . H e chal l en ges t he s uf f i c i enc y o f

t he evi denc e f

or t he i dent i t y t hef

tc ount s, ar gui ng t hatt he go vUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 24, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

2 ern m en t fa i l edto pro ve h e k n ew the m ea n s of i d en tifica ti on h e u sed b elon ge dto ano t he rpe r s o n. H e al s o ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d i n a dm i t t i ng e xt r i ns ice v id e n c e o f h is 1 9 8 9 co n v ic tio n o f c r e d it c a r da b u s e . W e a ffir m . I . C handl er w as c harge d w i t h m aki ng a fal ses t at em entt o abank i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1014 , ban k f rau d i n vi ol ati on of

18 U . S . C . § 1344 , an d three c o unt s o f

a ggr av at e d i de nt i t y t he f ti n v i o l at i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 1 02 8A( a) ( 1) . The govern m en tgave n ot i ce th at iti n t en dedt o i n t rodu ce ext ri n si c e v id en ce of C h a n d l er’ s 19 8 9 con victi on of cred i t ca rda b u se. T h e g ov ern m en t attem p tedto p rov e th a t C h a n d l er k n ow i n gly u sed som eo n e else’ s n a m e a n dsocial secu ri ty num be rt o o p e n a n a c c o u n ta tBa n ko f Ame r i c aa n dt h e n k n o wi n g l yu s e dt he s a m e n a m e to e x p e n dfu n d s fr o m th a t a c c o u n t. Am o ng i t s w i t ne s s e s , t h e g over nm e nto f fe r e d the t e s t i m o ny o f Br and y C h a n d le r(“B r a n d y”), th e w o m a n w h o s e id e n tit yw a s s to le n , a n dR o la n dR a y , a f rau d i n vest i gator f

or B an k of A m eri ca. B ran dy t est if i ed th at she never open ed t he ac c ountand, i n fac t , neve rh a d any ki nd of ac c ountw i t h B ank of A m er i c a. Sh e s t at ed thats he o nl y f ound outabo utt he acc ountw hen she appl i ed f ora l oan w ith a n o th e rb a n ka n dw a s d e n ie d . R ay then t es t i f

i ed, w i t h t he ai d of

vari ous ban k r ec or ds i nt r oduc ed as go ve r nm e nte xhibit s , r e ga r di ng ac t ivit y o n t he ac c o unt , w hi c h was o pe ne d us i ng t he n am e “ B ran dyC h an dl er. ” Th e accoun tshow ed B ran dy ’ s s oci alsec u rit y n u m ber butChandl e r ’ s a ddr e s s and dat e of b i r t h. The r e c o r ds a l s o s ho w e d thatChandl er m a d e se ve ra lcall s tryingto acce ss th e a ccou n t w i thh i s ow n social secu ri ty n u m ber, begi n n i n g ei gh tday s af t er itw as open ed, bu the w as den i ed. H e t h en at t e m pt e d t o g ai n a c c e s s t o t he a c c o unti n pe r s o n b utw as a ga i n de ni e d. The go ve r nm e nt al s o i nt r o duc e d c o pi e s o f t w o “ c o nve ni e nc e c he c ks ” s e nt by Ban k of

A m er i c a toC handl er . Aconve ni enc e chec k al l ow s a c ust om ert o e xCase: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

3 pe nd f unds e ve n if

t he r e i s no m o ne y i n t he ac c o unt . Chec k 311 7 w as m ad e o ut t o “ B r a n d on R . C handl er” and s i gned “ B r andy R . C handl er” ; c hec k 5094 w as m ad e out t o “ B ran don R ay C h an dl er” an d si gn ed “B ran dyC h an dl er. ” C h an dl er l aterst i pu l ated t h at he w rot e t h o se ch ecks out t o hi m self; he n ever at t em pted to p a yth e b a la n c e o n th e a c c o u n t. P u rsuan tt o F ederalR u l e of E vi den ce 404(b) , t h e di st ri ctcourtadm i t t ed t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e o f Chandl e r ’ s 19 89 c r e dit - c ar d- ab us e c o nvic t i o n. The cou rt ga ve a li m i ti n g in stru cti on to t h e j u ryto con siderthe con victi on on l y to prove i n t en t , kn ow l edg e, or absen ce of m i st ak e. Att he cl ose o f

t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s c as e , Chandl e rm ad e a n uns uc c e s s f ul F e d e r a lR u l e o f

C r i mi n a lP r o c e d u r e 2 9 m o t i o n f o rj u d g me n to f

a c q u i t t a l . H e t h e n p u th i s fa t h e ro n t h e s t a n d , w h o t e s t if i e dt h a th i s s o n h a s u s e dt h e n a me
“ B ran dy” as a ni ckn am e al lhi s life. A tt h e cl ose of al l t h e evi den ce, t h e courtden i ed C h an dl er’ s renew ed m ot i on f or j u dg m en tof

acqu i t t alan d d el ivered an ot h er r u le 4 0 4 (b ) lim itin gin s tr u c tio n . T h e ju ry fou n d C h a n d l er gu i l ty on a l l five cou n ts. H e ap p ea l s th e s u fficie n cyof th e e v id e n ce re g a rd in gth e k n o w led g e ele m e n t of h is id e n tityth e ft c o n v ic tio n s a n dth e a d m is s io n o f e x tr in s ice v id e n c e o f th e p r io rco n v ic tio n . II. W e revi ew t h e den i alof a p ro p e rl y preserved m ot i on f or j u dg m en tof

acq u itt a l de no vo . Un itedS ta tes v. Mitch ell , 4 8 4 F .3 d7 6 2 , 7 6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (c it at i ons om i t t ed) . R evi ew of t he suf f i c i enc y of t he e vi denc e f oll ow i ng a c r i m i nal con victi on , h ow ev er, i s “h i gh l y d eferen ti a lto t h e v erd i ct. ” Uni t e d St at e sv . Red d, 355 F . 3d866 , 8 72 ( 5th C i r. 2 003 ) . T h i s cou rtw i l la f f i rm if a reason able t ri er of fac tco ul d c o nc l ude t hatt he “ e l e m e nt s of t he of fe ns e w e r e e s t ab l i s he d b e yo nd a reasona bl e dou bt, v i ew i n g t h e ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ostfavorabl e t o t h e verdi ct a n dd r a w in ga ll r e a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d ic t.” Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

4 Un i t ed S t ate s v. M

yers , 104 F . 3d76, 78 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) . Proof m ay be d i rector c i r c um s t ant i al , a nd the j ur y i s [ o r di nar i l y] f r e e t o c ho o s e a m o ng r e as o nab l e c o ns tr u c tio n s o f th e e v id e n c e . Mi t che ll , 4 8 4 F . 3d at768 ( quot i ng Uni t e d S t at e sv. A n d ers on , 1 7 4 F .3 d5 1 5 , 5 2 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). W e re v ie w th e a d m is s io n o f r u le 4 0 4 (b) ev i d en ce for ab u se o f di sc r eti on, th ou gh tha t review i s “n ece ssa ri l y h eigh te n e d” in c r im in a l ca s e s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zalez , 76 F . 3d133 9, 134 7 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). III. A . C h an dl er c h al l en ges t h e suf f i ci en cy of

t h ee vi de n ce onl y f

or hi s aggrava t ed i de nt i t y t he f

tco nvic t i o ns unde r§ 102 8A( a) ( 1) . A c o nvic t i o n o f a ggr av at e d i de nt i t y t h ef

trequi res proof

t h at th e defen da n t( 1) kn ow i n gl y u sed ( 2) t h e m ean s of id e n tific a tio n o f a n o th e rp e r s o n (3 ) w ith o u t la w fu l a u t h o r i t y( 4 ) d u r in ga n din relati on to certa i n viol a ti on s, i n cl u d i n g b a n kf ra u dan dm a k i n g false statem en ts to ab a n k . Se eUni t e d St at e sv . St e phe ns , 571 F. 3d 401, 404- 05 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on s om i t t ed). Sect i on 102 8A ( a) ( 1) requi res th e g ov ern m en t t o p rov e “tha t th e d efen d a n t kn ew th a t t h e m e a n s o f id e n tifica ti on h e or sh e u n l a w fully tra n sferred , p oss ess ed , or u sed , i n fa ct, be l on ge dto a n oth er p erso n . ” Flores - Figu eroa v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 8 8 6 , 1 8 8 8 (2 0 0 9 ).” (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d) . “M ean s o f i de nt if i c at i o n” i nc l ude s “ any nam e o rnum be rt hatm ayb e us e d, a l o ne o ri n c o nj unc t i o n wi t h a ny o t he ri nf orm ati on , t o i de n tify a sp ecif i c i n divi du al , i n cl u di n g an y . . . na m e, soc i alsec u r ityn u m b e r , [o r] d a te o f b ir th . . . . ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 (d)(7 ). M o r e s p e c ific a lly , C h a n d le rc h a lle n g e s th e s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e o n ly w i t h re spe c tt o t he know l edge el em ent of § 1028A ( a) ( 1)
SSw het herhe knew t hat t h e me a n s o f

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h e u s e db e l o n g e dt o a n o t h e rr e a l p e r s o n . H e c l a i ms t hathe o nly t w e ak e d hi s ow n so c i alse c ur i t y num be ra nd h adno w ayo f kno w i ng Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

5 t h a tt h e r e s u l t i n gn u mb e rwo u l db e l o n g t o s o me o n e e l s e . T h e p r o s e c u t i o n , h o wever, produ ced evi den ce th at un derm i n es C h an dl er’ s c on t en t i on an d su pp ort s a fin d in go f g u ilt b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t. F i rst , t h e governm en tof fered evi den ce that C h an dl er opened t h e B an k of A m erica a ccou n t us i n g the nam e “ B r andy C handl er”and B r an d y’ s social secu ri ty n u m b e r , b u t h is o w n a d d r e s s a n d d a te o f b ir th . T h a t ev id e n c e re a s o n a b lyco u ld s u p p o rta nin f

e r e n c e t h a tC h a n d l e rt a r g e t e dB r a n d yb e c a u s e o f h e rs i mil a rn a me an d k n ew t h at th e soc i alsec u rit y n u m ber he u sed bel on g e d to her. C h an dl er s u g g e s ts th a t, a t m o s t, th e e v id e n c e s h o w s o n ly th a t h e tw e a k e d tw o d ig its o f h is ow n soc i alsec u rit y n u m ber an d that t h ere w as n o w ay f or h i m t o kn ow t h e new n u m b e rw o u ldb e lo n gto a n o th e rp e r s o n . T h at argum en ti s i m pl au sibl e. Th ou gh the l ast f ou r d i gi t s of

hi s nu m ber a n dh e rn u m b e rs h a r e t w o d ig it s , C h a n d le ro p e n e dth e a c c o u n tu n d e rB r a d y ’s f u l lsoc i alsec u rit y n u m ber, w h i ch bea rs l i t t l e re se m bl an ce t o hi s ow n . U se of h er entire nu m ber i n conj u n ct i on w i t h h er si m i l ar n am e sup ports an i n ference t h at C h an dl er kn ew t h e n u m ber bel on ged t o som eon e el se. C h an dl er’ s s u ggest io n th a tar a n d o m a lt e r a t io n o f h is o w n n u m b e rr e s u lt e di n h is u s e o f B r a n d y ’s i s v ap i d. The go ve r nm e nta l s o r e pr o duc e d t w o c o nve ni e nc e c he c ks f o r$ 40 0 and $60 0. C h an dl er m ad e out th e f i rstcheck to “ B ran don R . C h an dl er” an d si gn ed i tusi n g t h e n am e “ B ran dyR . C h an dl er. ” H e m ad e out th e sec on d to “ B ran don R ay C h an dl er” an d s i gn ed it u si n g t h e n am e “ B ran dy C h an dl er. ” B o th tim es, C h an dl er w as caref

u lt o m ak e checks ou t t o hi s f orm alna m e w h i l e si gn i n g t h em w i ththe n a m e “ B r a n d y.” M ore ov er, h e u sed tho se d iff ere n t na m es to w ri te checks aft er he w as repeatedl y w arn ed that t h e soc i alsec u rit y n u m ber on the acc ount di d not m at c h hi s ow n. C handl er ’ s endor se m ent of t he c hec ks as “ B r andy” w h i l e kn ow i n g h i s nu m ber w as not on the accoun tp rovi des consi derab l e sup port f ort he i nfer enc e thathe knew h e w as acc es si ng f und s usi ng B r andy’ s i dent i t y. Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

6 From C handl er ’ s appl i c at i on i nf or m at i on and s ubse quent c onduct , a r eas o nab l e j ur o rc o ul d hav e co nc l ude d be yo nd a r e as o nab l e do ubtt hathe kne w t he n u m ber he p rovi dedbel on gedt o an ot h er person. Th e governm en t , t h eref ore, pr o duc e d s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upp o r tt he c o nvic t i o n. B . Chandl e ra r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tabus e d it s di s c r e t i o n i n a dm i t t i ng evi den ce of

hi s 1989 con vi ct i on of creditcard abu se. H e contends that th e convi ct i on w as not suf

f i ci en t l y si m i l ar t o t h e cha rged of fen se t o be rel evan tan d w as t oo r e m o te to re ta in s ig n ific a n t p r o b a tiv e v a lu e . R ul e 4 04(b) go ver ns t h e adm i ss ibi l i t y o f ev i denc e o f

pr i orc r i m es orbad act s: E vid en ce of oth e rcri m es, w ron gs , or a cts i s n ot ad m i ssible t o p rov e th e ch a ra cter of a p erso n ino rd er to sh ow actioni n con form i ty t h erew i t h . I tm ay, how ever, be ad m i ssibl e f or ot h er pu rposes, such a s p r o o f o f m o tiv e , o p p o r tu n ity , in te n t, p r e p a r a tio n , p la n , k n o w ledg e, i den t i t y, or absen ce of m i st ak e or acci den t , provi dedt h at upon requ estby the accused, t h e prosecuti on i n a cr i m i n alcase sha l lprovi de reason able n ot i ce i n adv an ce of t ri al , or du ri n g t ri alif t h e court excuses pretr i aln ot i ce on good cau se s h ow n , of t h e gen eralna t u re o f a n ys u c h e v id e n c e it in te n d s to in tr o d u c e a t t r ia l. F ED . R . E VID . 4 04 (b) . I n Uni t e d St at e sv . Be e c hum , 582 F . 2d898 , 911 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ) (e n b a n c ) , t h i s co u r t la ido u t t h e tw o -s te p te s t fo ra d m is s io n o f e x tr in s ic evi den ce of

pri or of fen ses or oth er m i scondu ctu n der rul e 404 (b) . “ F i rst , itm u st be determ i n ed that t h e ext ri n si c of fen se evi den ce i s re leva n tt o an i ssue ot h er t h a n th e de fendant ’ s c harac t er . Sec ond, t he e vi denc e m ustpos se ss pr obat ive value t h at i s not sub st an t i al l y ou t w ei gh ed by i t s u n du e prej u di ce an d m u stm eet th e oth er re q u i rem en ts of ru l e 4 0 3 . ” Id . Ats t e p o ne , e vi de nc e i s r e l e va nt w he r e i tha s “ anyt e nde nc y t o m ak e t he exi st e nc e o f

a ny fac tt hati s o f

c o ns e que nc e t o t he de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he a ct i on Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

7 m ore pr ob a b l e or less p rob a b l e th a n it w ou l dbe w i th ou t th e ev i d en ce.”F ED . R. E VID . 4 0 1 . W h e r e th e e v id e n c e s o u g h t to b e in tr o d u c e d is a p r io ro ffe n s e , “its re lev a n ce is a f

u n cti on o f i ts si m i l a ri ty to th e offen se ch a rg ed . ” Bee c hum , 582 F. 2d at9 11 . W he r e t he de fe nda nt ’ s i nt e nt t o c o m m i tt he o f fe ns e c har ge d i s t he i s s ue a d d r e s s e d , “t h e r e le v a n c yo f t h e e x t r in s ic o ffe n s e d e r iv e s fr o m th e d e fe n d a n t ’s i ndu l gi ng hi m se l f

i n t he sa m e st at e of m i nd i n t he per pet r at i on of both t he e xtri n sic a n dch a rg edoff en ses . ” Id . O n ce th e co u rt d e te rm in e s th a t th e p rio r o ffen se requ i red t h e sam e m en t al st ate as di d th e cha rged of fen se (a n d th e j u ry c o ul d f i nd t hatt he def

e nda ntco m m i t t e d thato f fe ns e ) , t he e vi de nc e s at i s f i e s t he fir s t s te p u n d e rru le 4 0 4 (b ). Id . a t 9 1 3 . S t ep tw o of

t h e Bee c hum analys i s i nvo lve s t he fam i l i arrul e 4 03 b al anc i ng t es t : “A l t hough re l evant , ev i denc e m ay beex c l uded if it s pro bat ive val ue i s subst an t i al l y ou t w ei gh ed by t h e da n ger of u n fai r prej u di ce, confusi on of t h e i ssues, or m i sl ead i n g t h e j u ry, or b y consi derati on s of un du e del ay, w aste of t i m e, or n ee d l ess pr ese n tati on of cu m u l a tive ev i d en ce.”F EDR . E VID . 403 . The am o unt o f t i m e t ha th a s p a s s e db e t we e n t h e p r i o ro f fe n s e a n dt h e c u r r e n tc h a r g e , a nd t he o ver al ls i m i l ar i t y o f t he t w o a c t s, m ay af fec tt he pr obat ive val ue o f t he e xtr in s ic e v id e n c e . L im itin gin s tr u c tio n s d e liv e r e dfr o m th e b e n c h s u b s ta n tia lly d im in is h th e ris ko f u n fa irp r eju d ic e p o s e d b ya d m is s io n o f th a t e v id e n c e . Un ited S t ate s v. C raw ley , 5 3 3 F .3 d3 4 9 , 3 5 5 ( 5 t h C ir .), cer tden i ed , 129 S. C t . 522 (2 0 0 8 ). F ir s t, C h a n d le rcla im s th a t h is p r io rco n v ic tio n is n o t r e le v a n t, b e c a u s e it d i dn ot i n vo lve the sam e m en tal st a te as the ch a rg edoff en ses . T h e crim e to w h i ch h e p lea d ed gu i l t y i n 198 9, how ever, i n volvedt h e sam e st ate of m i n d requir e d f o rc o nvic t i o n und e r§ § 1 01 4, 1 34 4, a nd § 1 028 A . H i s 1 98 9 c r e dit - c ar dabu se c on vi ct i on cam e un der § 32. 31 of t h e T exas P en al C ode. T h e i n f orm ati on i n t hatc as e s t at ed that“t he D ef endantf

r audu l en tl y obt ai ned pr ope r t y . . . by pr e s e nt i ng an Am e r i c an Expr e s s c r e ditc ar d w i t h know le dget hatt he c ar d had Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

8 no tb e e n i s s ue d t o s ai d Def e nda nta nd w i t h know le dge th a t s a idcard w as not u sed w i t h the ef

fect ive consen tof

[t h e cardholder] ” ( em ph asi s add ed). Likew i se, §§ 10 1 4 , 13 4 4 , a n d10 2 8 Areq u i re a de fen d a n t t o com m i t th e p rosc rib edacts

“ kno w i ngly. ” The s i m i l ar i t y i n m e nt als t at e b e t w e e n t he e xt r i ns i co f fe ns e a nd t he c har ge d c r i m e s m ak e s t he 1 98 9 c o nvic t i o n r e l e va nt t o t he i s s ue o f i nt e nta nd sa tisfies ste p on e of Bee c hum . In t h e al t erna t ive, C h an dl er argu es t h at t h e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s di sc r et i on i n adm i t t i ng evi denc e of h i s pr i orconvi c t i on, beca use thatev i denc e w as s ubs t an ti a l l y m o r e pr ej udi c i alt han pr o ba t ive . H e a ve r s t hate vi de nc e o f t he c o nvi ct i on ha d l ow probative value, b ecau se of the seven t een y ears th at el ap sed betw e e n h is co n v ic tio n a n ds u b s e q u e n t o ffe n s e , a n dth a t t h e in tr o d u ctio n o f h is p r io rco n v ic tio n w a s lik e lyto in fla m e th e ju r y . D espi t e t h e rel ativel y l on g peri od of t i m e b et w een the of

fen ses, t h e di st ri ct c o ur tdi d no ta bus e it s di s c r e t i o n i n f i ndi ng t hat t he r ul e 4 03 b al anc e fav o r e d a dm i ssi on of th e p ri or c on vi ct i on . W e ha ve u ph el d ad m i ssi on of evi den ce ol der th a n s e v e n te e n y e a r s u n d e rru le 4 0 4 (b ). S eeUn itedS ta tes v. A rn o ld , 467 F. 3d 880, 885 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (c i t i ng c as es uph ol di ng adm i ss i on o f ev i denc e a s ol d as e ig h te e n y e a r s ). M o r e o v e r , th e p a s s a g e o f tim e s in c e ap r io rb a da c t o rc r im e is n o t a lo n e d is p o s itiv e o f a d m is s ib ility . S eeid ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ross ard , 80 F. 3d 1025, 1040 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) . I ti s r at heronl y o ne fac t ori n det er m i ni ng pr obat ive value t h at i s t o be consi dered a l on g w i t h t h e si m i l ari t y of the acts an d the ot h er ev i d en ce a va i l a b l e to p rov e th e d i sp u tedelem en t. “T h e p rob a tive va l u e of the ex tri n sic offen se corre l a tes p ositive l y w i thits l i k en ess to t h e offen se ch a rg ed . ” Bee c hum , 5 8 2 F .2 da t 9 1 5 . B o th th e e x tr in s ic and char ged of

fens es i nvolve t he per pet r at i on o f a f i nancial fr aud w her eby C h a n d le rm is r e p r e s e n te dh is id e n tit yfo rh is o w n p e c u n ia r yg a in . T h e s ig n ifican tsi m i l ari t y of

the cri m es i m bu es th e pri or c on vi ct i on w i t h consi derab l e probat ive val ue. M or eo ver , the c onvi c t i on w as notr epe t i t ive orc um ul at ive i n re l aCase: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 50132

9 t i o n t o t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s o t he re vi de nc e . I t t he r e f o r e r e t ai ne d i t s pr o ba t ivev al ue w i t h i n t h e prosecuti on ’ s c ase. Th ough t he pri or c onvi c t i on pos ed so m e t hre at of pr ej udi c e, t he r ul e 4 03 balance req u ir es exclu si on onl y w h ere “t h e t ri alj u dg e bel i eves th at th ere i s a gen u i n e ri sk that th e em ot i on s of t h e j u ry w i l lbe excit ed to irrat i on albeh avior , a n dth a t t h is ris kis d is p r o p o r t io n a te to th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e o ffe r e de v id en ce.” Id . at 915 n. 20 (c i t ati on s and inter n alqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). N ot only i s t hata hi gh s t andard f orex c l usi on, but t he di st r i c tc our tal som ade l audab l e e f f o r t s t o mi n i mi z e t h e c h a n c e o f u n fa i rp r ej u d i c e b yg iv i n gt w o s e p a r a t e l i mi t i ng i ns t r uc t i o ns , o ne a f t e rt he g o ve r nm e nti nt r o duc e d the c o nvic t i o n a nd o ne bef ore del iberati on . B ot h i n st ructi on s w arn ed j u rors aga i n st t h e f orbi dd en prop e n s ityin fe r e n c e a n dca r e f u llyd e lin e a te dth e lim ite dp u r p o s e s fo rw h ic h e v id e n ce o f th e convi ct i on w as rel evan t . W h atever ri sk of un fai r prej u di ce r em ai ne d a f

t e rde l ive r y of

t ho s e i ns t r uc t i o ns di d no ts ubs t ant i all y o ut w e i gh t he p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e co n v ic tio n . T h e di st ri ctcourtproperl y ap pl i ed the t w o- st ep ap proach un der Bee c hum . W e ca n nots ay, t her ef or e, t hatt he c our tabus ed it s di sc r et i on i n adm i t t i ng ext ri n si c evi den ce of

C h an dl er’ s 1989 convi ct i on of cr edi tcard abu se. T h e c o n v i c t i o n s a r e A F F I RMED. Case: 09-50132 Document: 00511034917 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/24/2010