[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 32 Dale Matthews Clar appeals his convictions for two counts of bank robbery , 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and two counts of possessin g 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 di strict court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of
the uncharge d 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 charge d

. “[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 offen ses 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, 2 013, and September 6, 2013,

were committed in a manner virtually identical to an earlier robbery of the bank on January 4, 2013. The e mployees 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 J anuary and April in a vehicle with its license plate

Case: 14-12107 Date Filed: 08/12/2015 Page: 2 of 33 covered with the image of a rainbow, and an employee who witnessed the robbery in January described the getaway car as a Toyota Camry. E vidence 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 t hre e of the witnesses described the robberies in April and September by referring to their accounts of the robber y in January

. Clar argues that he was unduly prejudiced by the admission of the evidence , but a ny prejudice was substantially outweighed by the probative value of the testimony about another bank robbery

. S ee Fed. R. Evid. 403. Accounts of the robbery in January corroborated Clar’s confession s to robbing a Chase B ank on three occasions while wearing the same disguise, carrying a cooler, wielding a gun , and escap ing in a Toyota Camry

. See Edouard , 485 F.3d at 134 5. 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 acco rding 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 t he 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