FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 23, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13530 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 4 4 7 - C R - C MA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D E R I C K R . F R Y E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 23, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

F l or i daj ury c onvi c t e d appe l l a ntof vi ol a t i ng 182

U . S . C . § 9 22 (a )( 6) by m aki ng a f al se w ri tt en st at em entt o a fe dera l l y- l i ce nsed f ir e a rm d e a le r , D a d d y ’s C a s h a n d P a w n ( “D a d d y ’s ” ) , o n J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 2 , in a tt e m pt i ng t o pur c ha s e aha ndgun. A f t e rthe di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d s e nt e nc e , 36 m o n th s in c a r c e r a tio n , h e lo d g e d th is ap p e a l, c h a lle n g in g h is c o n v ic tio n . A ppe l l a nts e e ks the va c a t i on of hi s c onvi c t i on a nd the e ntry of aj udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l on the gr ound tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upportaj ury f i ndi ng th a t o n J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 2 , D a d d y ’s p o s s e s s e d th e r e q u is ite f e d e r a l f ir e a rm s lic e n s e . A lte rn a tiv e ly , h e s e e k s an e w tr ia l o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng unde rF e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) as ubs e que nts i m i l a ra c t– the p o s s e s s io n o f

as h o rt- b a rr e le d s h o tg u n f o rw h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d –to d e mo n s tr a t e h i s i n t e n tt o c o mmi tth e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . W e a f

f i rm. W e n ee d n o t t ar ry lo n g in d isp o sin g o f a p p ellan t’ s f irst co n ten ti o n . D ad d y’s ow ne r , J or ge S a ga rr a , t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s t or e ha d af e de r a l f i r e a rm s l i c e ns e a tthe t i m e appe l l a ntm a de the a l l e ge dl y f a l s e s t a t e m e nton the A T F f orm . A T F a ge nt J a m ie M o r a le s s ta te d th a t D a d d y ’s w a s af e d e r a lly - lic e n s e d f

ir e a rm s d e a le r . S ag ar ra ’s an d M o ra les’s tes ti m o n y p ro v id ed a s u ff icien t p re d icate f

o r th e ju ry ’s f i ndi ng tha tD a ddy ’ s w a s al i c e ns e d de a l e r . W e turn, the r e f or e , t o the R ul e 404( b) evi dence. O n Jun e 22, 20 02 , a l i tt l e over tw o w ee ks before he com m i tt ed the §3

92 2(a) (6) off

ense atD addy’ s, appel l antac qu i es ce d i n a st at e c ou rt ’ s e ntryof a

“ D om e s t i c V i ol e nc e S t a y A w a y O r de r ” w hi c h obl i ga t e d hi m t o r e m a i n a tl e a s t500 f e e tf r om hi s w i f

e unt i l f urthe ror de rof

the c ourt . T he or de ra l s o r e qui r e d tha the

“ no tuse, po ss es s, or ca rry afi re arm , gu n, w eapo n o r a m m un i t i on . ” O n Jul y 8, 20 02 , appel l antw entt o D addy’ s, ac com pani ed by hi s w i fe (they h a d ap p a r e n tly r e c o n c ile d ) , a n d to ld S a g a rr ath a t h e a n d h is w if e w e r e s e e k in g “h is and h er ” handg un s. A ft erthey s el ec t ed the hand gu ns – she pi cked ou ta . 25 ca l i ber pi st ol ; he se l ec t ed a l ar ger c al i ber S m i th & W es son revol ver – S agarrahand ed appe l l a ntA F T f

orm 4473. W i thouts e e ki ng a ny a s s i s t a nc e , appe l l a ntf i l l e d outthe f orm , i nc l udi ng que s t i on 12( H ) w hi c h a s ke d w he the rthe buy e rw a s s ubj e c tt o a do m es t i c vi ol ence re stra i ni ng order a nd st at ed thaton e s ubj ec tt o such an o rderw as i nel i gi bl e t o p urchas e afi re arm . A pp el l antansw er ed the qu es t i on i n the negat i ve. O n r e c e iv in g th e f

o rm f r o m ap p e lla n t, S a g a rr ato ld h im th a t h e w o u ld c om pl e t e the s a l e f

ol l ow i ng aba c kgr ound c he c k. A ppe l l a ntga ve S a ga rr aaF l or i da i dent i fi ca t i on do cum ent , and S agarracont ac t ed the F l ori da D epartm entof L aw E nf or c e m e nt( “ F D L E ” ) . T he F D L E t ol d hi m t o de l a y the tr a ns a c t i on, a nd he in f o rm e d ap p e lla n t th a t th e m a tte rw o u ld ta k e b e tw e e n 1 0 m in u te s a n d af u ll d a y to b e r e s o lv e d . A p p e lla n t in tu rn g a v e S a g a rr aa$ 1 0 0 d e p o s it a n d s a id h e w o u ld r e tu rn th e n e x t d a y . L a te rth e s a m e d a y , J u ly 8 , th e F D L E d is ap p r o v e d th e s a le .4

W hen app el l antre turned t o the st ore on Jul y 9, S agarrat ol d h i m thatthe sa l e had b ee n b lo ck ed an d g av e h im a f o rm w ith w h ich h e c o u ldap p ea l th e F D L E ’s d e c is io n . A p p e lla n t d idn o t ap p e a l. O n J ul y 18, 2002, t e n da y s a f t e rthi s abort e d f

i r e a rm s pur c ha s e , of

f i c e r s of the l oc a l pol i c e de pa rtm e ntw e r e s um m one d i n the e a r l y m orni ng hour s t o the ho m e of T eni ri qu e C l ark. O n arr i val , M s. C l ark t ol d them thatappel l anthad b ee n there and w as arm ed w i th a saw ed-off shot gu n. T hen, af

t ershe pho ned the po l i ce , h e d e p a rte d th e s c e n e , le a v in g th e s h o tg u n u n d e ran e a rb y tr e e . A pp el l antw as apprehended la t eri n the day a nd conceded thathe had po ss es se d the w eapo n, a . 12 gaug e s ho t gu n w i th a short ened barre l and m od i fi ed h a n d le , a n d a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e d o m e s tic v io le n c e r e s tr a in in g o r d e rw a s s till in e f f e c t. H e la te rp le d g u ilty in s ta te c o u rt to p o s s e s s in g as a w e d - o f f s h o tg u n a n d to perpetra t i ng do m es t i c vi ol ence . A T F ag en tM o ral es su b seq u en t l y arrest ed ap p el l an tfo r m ak i n g a fal se s t a t e m e nti n r e s pons e t o que s t i on 12( H ) on the A T F f orm a tD a ddy ’ s . A ppe l l a nt a dm i tt e d f

i l l i ng outthe f

orm a nd a ns w e r i ng the que s t i on a s he di d. O n J ul y 2, 2 0 0 4 , ag r a n d ju ry r e tu rn e d th e in d ic tm e n t in th is c a s e . P r io rto tr ia l, th e G o v e rn m e n t f ile d an o tic e o f

its in te n t to r e ly o n R u le 404( b) e vi de nc e – s pe c i f i c a l l y , appe l l a nt ’ s pos s e s s i on of the s a w e d- of

f s hot gun on5

J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d s u b s e q u e n t c o n v ic tio n –to d e m o n s tr a te ap p e lla n t’s in te n t to p o s s e s s af

i r e a rm o n J u l y 8 , 2 0 0 2 , b y a n s we r i n g f a l s e l y q u e s t i o n 1 2 ( H) o n th e ATF f orm . T he G ove rnm e nta nt i c i pa t e d tha tappe l l a ntw oul d de f e nd the f a l s e s t a t e m e nt c h a r g e b y c la im in g th a t h e d id n o t k n o w th a t h e w a s a“p r o h ib ite d ” p e r s o n . A ppe l l a ntr e s ponde d t o the G ove rnm e nt ’ s not i c e by m ovi ng i n l i m i ne t o ha ve the R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e e xc l ude d. T he c ourtde ni e d hi s m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s pr oba t i ve of hi s m ot i ve t o l i e on the A T F f orm a nd of

the abs e nc e of m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t. We r e vi e w pr ope r l y pr e s e rve d c ha l l e nge s t o tr i a l c ourtrul i ngs on a dm i s s i on of e vi de nc e f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J i m i ne z , 224 F . 3d 1243, 1249 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . A c ourtabus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i t s de c i s i on " r e s t s upon a cl earl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng of fa ct , an errantconcl usi on of l aw , or an i m prop er appl i ca t i on of l aw t o fac t . " U ni t ed S t at es v. B aker , 43 2 F . 3d 11 89 , 12 02 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt d e n ie d , P le s s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 8 0 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . E vi de nc e s how i ng " a ny t e nde nc y t o m a ke the e xi s t e nc e of a ny f a c ttha ti s of consequence t o the det erm i nat i on of the ac t i on m ore probabl e or l es s probabl e than it w o u ld [ o th e rw is e ] b e " is " [ r ]e le v a n t e v id e n c e ," a n d " [ a ]ll r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is [ g e n e r a lly ] a d m is s ib le " a t tr ia l. F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 . E v e n if e v id e n c e is r e le v a n t, th o u g h , it " m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly6

outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , or m i sl ea di ng the j ury. " F ed. R . E vi d. 40 3. T hi s rul e i s, ho w ever , an “ extra ordi nary r e m e d y . . . w h ic h s h o u ld b e u s e d s p a r in g ly s in c e it p e rm its th e tr ia l c o u rt to e xc l ude c onc e de dl y pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W r i ght , 392 F . 3d 1269, 1 2 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 5 4 4 U .S . 9 6 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) p r o h ib its a ll evi dence of " cr i m es , w rong s, or ac t s" t o p rove thata per son i s of achar ac t erthat w oul d c om m i tthe c r i m e c ha r ge d, buti tpe rm i t s s uc h e vi de nc e t o pr ove , a m ong other thi ng s, m ot i ve, i nt ent , or abse nce of m i st ake or ac ci dent . B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at 1 2 0 4 . W e app l y athree -partt es tfor det erm i ni ng the adm i ss i bi l i ty of e vi dence unde rR ul e 404( b) . F i r s t , the e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r . S e c ond, the e vi de nc e m us tbe s uf f i c i e ntt o s upportaf

i ndi ng tha tthe de f

e nda nta c tua l l y c om m i tt e d the e xtr i ns i c a c t . T hi r d, the pr oba t i ve va l ue o f th e e v id e n c e m u s t n o t b e s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e r is ko f u n f a ir prej ud i ce . U ni t ed S t at es v. C al deron, 12 7 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 19 97 ), m o d if ie d o n o th e rg r o u n d s , U n ite d S ta te s v . T o le r , 1 4 4 F .3 d 1 4 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A s f o rth e f ir s t p r o n g , e v id e n c e o f

e x tr in s ic o f

f e n s e s m a y b e a d m is s ib le to show m ot i ve. B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at12 04 . O vera l l si m i l ar i ty betw ee n the charged c r im e a n d th e e x tr in s ic o f f e n s e is n o t r e q u ir e d w h e n th e o f f e n s e is in tr o d u c e d to7

s how m ot i ve . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e e c hum , 582 F . 2d 898, 912 n. 15 ( 5th C i r . 1978) (en b an c). T h e seco n d p ro n g o f th i s t esti s m eti f a j u ry co u l d fi n d b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed the un char ged m i s c o n d u c t . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ho o s h m a n d , 9 3 1 F . 2 d 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . As for the thi rd pron g, a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on t o the j ury by the di stri ctcourtcan m itig a te a n y u n f

a irp r e ju d ic e th a t th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e c au s e d . C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d a t1333. W e f i nd no abuse of di sc re t i on i n the adm i ss i on of the R ul e 404 (b) e vi dence a ti s s ue . F i r s t , the e vi de nc e w a s r e l e va ntt o appe l l a nt ’ s a r gum e nttha the di d not u n d e r s ta n d th e A T F f

o rm . T h e c o u rt c o rr e c tly a llo w e d th e G o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e h is s ta te c o u rt c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

th e s h o rt- b a rr e le d s h o tg u n to s how hi s m ot i ve f

orf a l s e l y a ns w e r i ng que s t i on 12( H ) on the A T F f orm a nd tha the di d notm a ke am i s t a ke i n doi ng s o. S e c ond, the G ove rnm e ntc a rr i e d i t s bur de n of pr ovi ng tha tappe l l a ntw a s c onvi c t e d of the pos s e s s i on of

f e ns e by i ntr oduc i ng the c onvi c t i on doc um e nt s . T hi r d, the G ove rnm e nts uf f i c i e nt l y s how e d tha tthe pr oba t i ve va l ue of

tha tc onvi c t i on outw e i ghe d i t s pot e nt i a l pr e j udi c e . T he G ove rnm e ntus e d the R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e s of s how i ng m ot i ve , i . e . , he w a nt e d t o pos s e s s agun, a nd abs e nc e of m i s t a ke , i . e . , he kne w he w a s ba rr e d f

r om pos s e s s i ng agun. T hi s e vi de nc e w a s pr oba t i ve be c aus e appe l l a nt8

w oul d notha ve pl e d gui l ty t o the s hot gun c ha r ge i f he ha d notknow n tha tthe prot ec t i ve order m ade i ti l l egal for hi m t o p osse ss a gun . L as t l y, the courtprov i ded alim itin g in s tru c tio n a s to th e u s e o f th e R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e . AF F I R ME D.