[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12107

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cr-00245-GAP-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DALE MATTHEWS CLAR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 12, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-12107 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Dale Matthews Clar appeals his convictions for two counts of bank robbery, 

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and two counts of possessing a firearm during a crime of 

violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Clar challenges the admission of evidence at trial 

about a third bank robbery for which he was not charged. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of 

the uncharged robbery. Although the district court admitted the evidence under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), we can affirm for any reason supported by the 

record, United States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386, 1391 (11th Cir. 2015), which reveals

that the robbery was intrinsic to the crimes charged. “[E]vidence of uncharged 

conduct that is part of the same scheme or series of transactions and uses the same 

modus operandi as the charged offenses is admissible as intrinsic evidence outside 

the scope of Rule 404(b).” Id. at 1394. Testimony from four employees of the 

Chase Bank in Apopka, Florida, and surveillance recordings established that the 

robberies allegedly committed by Clar on April 3, 2013, and September 6, 2013, 

were committed in a manner virtually identical to an earlier robbery of the bank on 

January 4, 2013. The employees testified consistently that, during the three 

robberies, a tall Caucasian man wearing green scrubs, a mask, and glasses 

approached a bank teller, brandished a black firearm, and demanded money, which 

he put inside a red cooler. Two of the employees also testified that the robber fled 

from the robberies during January and April in a vehicle with its license plate 

Case: 14-12107 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

covered with the image of a rainbow, and an employee who witnessed the robbery

in January described the getaway car as a Toyota Camry. Evidence also is intrinsic 

“if it forms an integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the 

circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicted,”

United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007), and three of the 

witnesses described the robberies in April and September by referring to their 

accounts of the robbery in January.

Clar argues that he was unduly prejudiced by the admission of the evidence, 

but any prejudice was substantially outweighed by the probative value of the 

testimony about another bank robbery. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Accounts of the 

robbery in January corroborated Clar’s confessions to robbing a Chase Bank on 

three occasions while wearing the same disguise, carrying a cooler, wielding a gun, 

and escaping in a Toyota Camry. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1345. Moreover, the 

district court eradicated any potential prejudice to Clar by instructing the jury that 

it could consider evidence of similar acts only to “decide whether [Clar] had the 

state of mind of intent necessary for the crime charged, acted according to a plan or 

to prepare to commit a crime or committed the charged acts by accident or 

mistake,” and then by referring to that instruction to respond to a note sent by the 

jury during its deliberations. See id. at 1346.

We AFFIRM Clar’s convictions.

Case: 14-12107 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 Page: 3 of 3