FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 10215 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 1 1 6 - C R - T - 2 6 - T GW 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 J A M E S R I C H A R D C A T O N , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 19, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Jam es R i ch ard C at o n ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s o n th e fo l l o w i n g ch arg es:2

( 1) di s tr i but i on of

c oc a i ne ba s e , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ( “ C ount O ne ” ) ; ( 2) pos s e s s i on of a n unr e gi s t e r e d f

i r e a r m , 26 U . S . C . §§ 5861( d) , 5871 ( “ C ountT w o” ) ; ( 3) pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m noti de nt i f

i e d by a s e r i a l num be r , 26 U .S .C . § § 5 8 6 1 ( d ) , 5 8 7 1 ( “C o u n t T h r e e ” ) ; ( 4 ) p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a r m in furthera nce of a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e, 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ) ( “ C ou ntF ou r” ); a nd ( 5) di s tr i but i on of

f i ve gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne ba s e , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) and (b)(1)(B)(i i i )( “ C ou ntF i ve”) . C at on ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or i n adm i tt i ng t es t i m on y a nd i t em s c on ce rni ng un char ged, drug -r el at ed a c t i vi ty i nt o e vi de nc e a nd i n ut i l i z i ng a n i m pr ope rve r di c tf or m . W e di s a gr e e a nd A F F I R M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D A fe dera l grand j ury r eturned an i nd i ctm entchar gi ng C at on w i th C ou ntO ne, C o u n t T w o , C o u n t T h r e e , C o u n t F o u ra n d C o u n t F iv e . C a to n p le a d e d n o t g u ilty to the c ha r ge s . R 4- 2. H e w a s s ubs e que nt l y tr i e d a nd c onvi c t e d on a l l c ount s i n a tw o- da y j ur y tr i a l . R 11- 12. H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 70 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nton C ount s O ne , T w o, T hr e e a nd F i ve , t o run c onc ur r e nt l y , a nd 60 m onths of i m pri sonm enton C ou ntF ou r, t o run consec ut i ve t o h i s s ent ence on the ot her co u n t s. R 1 -6 8 at2 . C at o n n o w ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s o n al l fi v e co u n t s. A ttri al , D et ec t i ve A l ej andro A ng ul o, an un derc ov erl aw enforce m entoffi ce r3

fr om the S heri ff’ s O ff

i ce i n P ol k C ou nt y, F l ori da, t es t i fi ed thathe pu rc hase d cra ck c oc a i ne a nd a s a w e d- of f s hot gun f

r om C a t on. R 11 a t104- 06, 113, 118- 21. A ngul o, a c c om pa ni e d by a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt , a r r i ve d a tC a t on’ s hom e a nd f ol l ow e d C a t on i nt o w ha tappe a r e d t o be the m a s t e rbe dr oom . I d. a t112- 13. A s he m ad e h i s w ay t o th e m ast er b ed ro o m , A n g u l o o b serv ed th ree m al es l o i t eri n g j u st i ns i de the thr e s hol d of

the r e s i de nc e . I d. a t111. O nc e i ns i de the be dr oom , C a t on c l os e d the door , l oc ke d i ta nd the n r e tr i e ve d thr e e r oc k- l i ke s ubs t a nc e s ( be l i e ve d by A n g u lo to b e c r a c k c o c a in e ) f r o m a s m a ll n ig h t s ta n d n e a rh is b e d . I d . a t 1 0 9 - 1 3 . C a t on ha nde d A ngul o one of the r oc k- l i ke s ubs t a nc e s a nd the n be ga n s m oki ng a n o th e r . I d . a t1 1 3 . Ca t o n s t a t e d th a t“ th i s c r a c k i s g o o d , s o g o o d th a ti tma k e s me f e e l th a t I c o u ld ta k e o n th e p o lic e b y m y s e lf .” I d . C a t on pe r s i s t e nt l y a tt e m pt e d t o ge tA ngul o t o s m oke the c r a c k w hi c h C a t on ha d ha nde d hi m e a r l i e r . A ngul o r e pe a t e dl y de c l i ne d. C a t on be c a m e a ngr y a nd s o, w he n C a t on r e que s t e d hi m t o s m oke onc e a ga i n, A ngul o di s tr a c t e d C a t on by a s ki ng t o s e e the s a w e d- of f s hot gun. I d. a t114- 17. A ngul o pr e t e nde d t o s m oke the c r a c k a s C a t on r e tr i e ve d the s hot gun. I d. a t117. C a t on br oughtouta s hot gun w i th a j a gge d e dge , r e m ove d a r ound of a m m uni t i on tha tha d be e n i n the s hot gun, a n d h a n d e d b o th th e s h o tg u n a n d th e a m m u n itio n to A n g u lo . I d . a t 1 1 8 - 1 9 . A n g u lo th e n p u r c h a s e d th e s h o tg u n f r o m C a to n . I d . a t 1 2 1 .4

A ng ul o t hen asked C at on w hether he had any cr ac k. Id. at12 5. C at on l ef t the bedroo m and returned app roxi m at el y three m i nu t es l at erw i th cra ck thathad

“ j us tf i ni s he d c ooki ng. ” I d. a t125- 26. A ngul o pa i d C a t on f orthe c r a c k a nd C a t on i nd i ca t ed thathe w ou l d b e abl e t o g etm ore c ra ck i n t he future. Id. at12 7. A s they w e r e w a l ki ng outof

C a t on’ s hous e , A ngul o, a l though i ns truc t e d by C a t on t o not l ook i n the ba thr oom , ne ve r the l e s s s a w tw o m e n i n the ba thr oom s m oki ng som ethi ng ou tof a beerca n t hathad b ee n fas hi on ed i n a w ay thati s typi ca l l y use d to s m o k e c r a c k . I d . a t 1 2 9 - 3 0 . F ou r day s l at er , A ng ul o con t ac t ed C at on i n o rdert o p l ac e a n o rderfor m ore c r a c k . I d . a t 1 3 1 - 3 2 . A n g u lo m e t C a to n in C a to n ’s d r iv e w a y a n d C a to n to ld h im to c o m e in s id e th e h o u s e a s th e c r a c k h a d n o t y e t a r r iv e d . I d . a t1 3 4 - 3 5 . A n g u lo and C at on w entt o t he sa m e bedroom i n w hi ch the previ ou s tra nsac t i on had t aken pl ac e. Id. at13 5. Insi de the room , a f em al e w as l yi ng on the bed sm ok i ng w hat appeare d t o b e c ra ck. Id. at13 5-36 . A ng ul o l ef tthe prem i se s a ft erbei ng t ol d t hat th e c r a c k w o u ld n o t b e a v a ila b le f o ra w h ile . I d . a t 1 3 7 . C a to n c a lle d A n g u lo th e n e x t d a y a n d to ld h im th a t th e c r a c k h a d a r r iv e d . I d. a t139. A ngul o r e tur ne d t o C a t on’ s hous e a nd pur c ha s e d c r a c k c oc a i ne f r om h im . I d . a t 1 4 0 - 4 1 . C a to n w a s a r r e s te d o n 1 4 F e b ru a r y 2 0 0 6 . I d . a t 1 4 5 - 4 6 . A s e a r c h w a r r a ntf

orhi s hous e w a s e xe c ut e d the s a m e da y . I d. a t145. T he r e w e r e noTh ec ourt ins tr uc te d th e jur

y that “it mus t not co ns ider any of thi s evi denc e in de c idingif 1 Mr. Caton committed the acts charg ed in the [i ]ndi ctment.” I d. at 201. The court then i n s tru ct ed that, i f t hejur y fo un d b e yon d a

re a so na bledo ub t th at Caton

c ommit ted thec ha

rg e d ac ts, it c ould then c on side r evide nc eof sim ila r ac ts that w e rea lle g e dly c ommitt e d on oth e r o c c a sio ns in o rde r to deter mine: (1) “whether

[C aton] had the state of mind or intent nec essar y to commit the crimes charg ed in the [i] ndictment;” (2) “whether he ac ted ac cordingto a plan or in preparationfor commission of a crime;” or (3) “whether

he committed the ac ts for which heis on trial by acc ident or mistake.” Id. 5 obj e c t i ons t o a ny que s t i ons tha tA ngul o w a s a s ke d dur i ng di r e c te xa m i na t i on nor w e r e the r e a ny obj e c t i ons t o a ny e xhi bi t s tha tw e r e i ntr oduc e d i nt o e vi de nc e dur i ng th e c o u r s e o f

A n g u lo ’s te s tim o n y . A ft erA ng ul o’ s t es t i m on y, the go vernm entca l l ed F ra nci ne M edders . Id. at 183. M e dde r s t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he ha d obs e rve d C a t on s m oki ng c r a c k c oc a i ne i n the p a s t a n d th a t h e h a d o f

f e r e d c r a c k c o c a in e to h e ro n tw o o c c a s io n s . I d . a t 1 8 7 - 8 8 . T h er e w er e n o o b

jectio n s to th is testim o n y. A t th e c o n clu sio n o f M ed d er ’s t e s t i m ony , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ovi de d the j ur y a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on. I d. a t200- 01. 1 T h e g o v e r n m e n t th e n c a lle d D e te c tiv e C o r e y L a n ie ro f th e P o lk C o u n ty S h e r if f’s o f f ic e . I d . a t 2 0 1 - 0 2 . L a n ie rte s tif ie d a b o u t C a to n ’s a r r e s t a n d r e f e r r e d to

“ tw o p i pes” thatw er e f

ou nd by the po l i ce du ri ng the course of the arre st . Id. at 212- 13. T he r e w e r e no obj e c t i ons t o thi s t e s t i m ony . A f t e rL a ni e r , L e r on S tr ong, a n e m p lo y e e w ith th e L a k e la n d P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, te s tif ie d f o rth e g o v e r n m e n t. Id. at21 5-16 . S trong t es t i fi ed thatdu ri ng the course of execut i ng the se ar ch w a r r a ntf orC a t on’ s r e s i de nc e , he f ound “ w ha tappe a r e d t o be a drug l e dge r ” on a6

d r e s s e rin C a to n ’s b e d r o o m . I d . a t 2 1 7 . T h e a lle g e d le d g e rw a s th e n e n te r e d in to e vi de nc e w i thoutobj e c t i on. I d. a t220- 21. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n r e m i nde d the ju r y o f its p r e v io u s lim itin g in s tru c tio n a n d to ld th e ju r y to ap p ly th a t in s tru c tio n to th e te s tim o n y o f

b o th L a n ie ra n d S tr o n g . I d . a t 2 2 4 . T w o add i t i on al go vernm entw i tness es then t es t i fi ed abou ti t em s s ei ze d d u r i n g th e e x e c u t i o n o f

th e s e a r c h w a r r a n tf

o rCa t o n ’ s r e s i d e n c e . O f f i c e rJ e r e my W hart on of the P ol k C ou nty S heri ff’ s off i ce st at ed thathe se i ze d t w o g l as s pi pes a n d s e v e r a l p la s tic b a g g ie s th a t “[ t]y p ic a lly ... [ a r e ] u s e d to p a c k a g e c e r ta in a m ount s of

drugs . ” I d. a t225, 230- 35. D e t e c t i ve M i c ha e l S m i th of the L a ke W a l e s P ol i c e D e pa r tm e ntt e s t i f i e d tha t , dur i ng the s e a r c h, he f ound tw o s m a l l ba gs of m ar i j uana beneath t he sofapi l l ow s of acouch i n C at on ’ s l i vi ng room . Id. at 238- 40. C a t on r a i s e d no obj e c t i ons t o thi s t e s t i m ony nordi d he obj e c tt o the i ntr oduc t i on i nt o e vi de nc e of a ny of the i t e m s s e i z e d dur i ng the e xe c ut i on of the s e a r c h w a r r a nt . A f

t e rS m i th’ s t e s t i m ony , the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a nothe rl i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on c onc e r ni ng the l i m i t e d us e of the e vi de nc e r e l a t e d t o the e xe c ut i on of th e s e a r c h w a r r a n t. I d . a t 2 4 3 - 4 4 . A ft erC at on re st ed hi s c as e, the di stri ctcourt in q u ired w hether there w er e a n y o b je c tio n s to th e p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n s . T h e r e w e r e n o n e . R 1 2 a t 6 3 . N o rd id C at on offe r a n y ad di t i on al i nstruct i on s. A ft ercl osi ng ar gu m ent s, the di stri ctcourt7

i n stru ct ed th e j u ry:

N ow , before y ou can find [C at on ] gu i l ty of thatoffe nse a s ch arge d i n C ount[ F our ] , a l l of the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t s m us tbe p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t: O n e, th ath e co m m i tt ed th e d ru g traffi ck i n g o ffen se c h a r g e d in C o u n t [ O n e ] o f th e I n d ic tm e n t.... S e c ond, tha tdur i ng the c om m i s s i on of tha tof f e ns e . . . the D e f en d a ntknow i ngl y c a r r i e d orpos s e s s e d a f i r e a r m a s c ha r ge d; a nd, fi n al l y, tha tthe D e f e nda ntc a r r i e d the f

i r e a r m i n r e l a t i on t o, orpos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nce o f t he drug tr a f f i c ki ng o ff en se in C o u n t [O n e].

.... T o c a r r y o r p o s s e s s a f i r e a r m m e a ns tha tthe D e f e nda nt e i t he r ha d a f

i r e a r m o n o ra r o u n d h i s p e r s o n , o rtr a n s p o r t e d, conv ey ed or cont rol led a fire arm i n such a w ay thati tw as a va i l a bl e f

ori m m e di a t e us e i f

the D e f e nda nts o de s i r e d dur i ng the c om m i s s i on of

the drug tr a ffi ck i ng of f e ns e c ha r ge d i n C ount [ O n e ].A nd t o carry a f

i re arm i n rel at i on t o an o ff ense m ea ns that there m ust b e aconn ec t i on betw ee n t he D ef endant , the fi re arm a nd the drug tr a f

f i c ki ng of

f e ns e i n C o u n t[ O ne ] , s o tha tthe pr e s e nc e of

the f i r e a r m w a s nota c c i de nt a l orc oi nc i de nt a l , but f a c i l i t a t e d the c r i m e by servi ng s om e i m por t a ntf unc t i on or p u rp o se o f th e cri m i n al act i v i ty. T o pos s e s s a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a n of f e ns e m e a ns s om e thi ng m or e t h an m er e pr e s e nc e of a f i r e a r m . I tm us tbe show n t h at th e fi re arm hel ped, furthere d, prom ot ed or advanced th e o ffen se i n so m e w ay. N o w , th e i n d ic tm e n t c h a r g e s th a t th e D e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly c a r r i e d a f

i r e a r m dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i o n t o a drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e n se , a nd pos s e s s e d a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tr a f f i c ki ng of

f e ns e . I ti s c ha rg ed , i n othe rw or ds , tha tthe De f e n d a n tv i o l a t e d th e l a w a s c h a r g e d i n C o u n t[ F o u r ] i n two sep arat e w ays. I ti s notne c e s s a r y , how e ve r, fo rthe G ove r nm e ntt o pr ove th a t th e D e f

e n d a n t v io la te d th e la w in b o th o f th o s e w a y s . I t is s uf f i c i e nti f the G ove r nm e ntpro v es be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt8

th atth e D efen d an tk n o w i n g l y v i o l at ed th e la w in ei th er w ay. B u t, in th at ev en t , yo u m u st u n an i m o u sl y ag ree u p o n th e w a y in w h ic h th e D e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d th e v io la tio n . R 1 2 at5 5 -5 7 . T h e co u rtth en rep eat ed i t s i n stru ct i o n s co n cern i n g th e l i m i t ed u se o f e v id e n c e r e la te d to th e s e a r c h o f C a to n ’s h o u s e . I d . a t 5 7 - 5 8 . W i tho utobj ec t i on , the di stri ctcourtprov i ded t he j ury averdi ctform that s ta te d a s to C o u n t F o u ro f th e in d ic tm e n t: A s t o the of

f e ns e of c a r r y i ng a nd pos s e s s i ng a f i r e a r m dur i ng a nd in r e la tio n to a n d in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) , W e , th e J u r y , f

in d th e d e f

e n d a n t, J AME S RI CH AR D CAT ON : N otG ui l ty _______ G ui l ty _______ C M / E C F f

orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , N o. 8: 06- c r - 116, D oc . 56 a t2. T he ju r y m a r k e d th e v e r d ic t f o r m “G u ilty ” a s to C o u n t F o u r . I d . O n appe a l , C a t on r a i s e s thr e e a r gum e nt s , w hi c h w e a ddr e s s i n tur n: ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e r r orby a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of C a t on’ s unc ha r ge d, drug- r e l a t e d a c t i vi ty ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e r r orby a l l ow i ng a de t e c t i ve t o i de nt i f

y a n i t e m s e i z e d f

r om C a t on’ s r e s i de nc e a s a “ drug l e dge r ” a nd there af t eradm i tt i ng the i t em i nt o evi dence; and (3) the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or by subm i tt i ng the verdi ctform t o t he j ury on C ou ntF ou r.“F or an error to affe ct substantial rights, ‘the er ror must havebeen prejudicial: It must have 2 aff ecte d the outcome of

the district court proc eeding s.’” I d. (qu oting United States v. O lano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.C t. 1770, 1778 (1993)) . “I f the first three conditions of the plain error test are met, we may

correct the error

if it ‘seriously

aff ects the fa i rness, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s.’” I d. (quotingUni ted States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1328-29 ( 11 Cir. th 2005)). 9 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . W he the rthe D i s tr i c tC our tC om m i tt e d P l a i n E r r orby A dm i tt i ng E vi de nc e of C a to n ’s U n c h a r g e d , D ru g - r e la te d A c tiv ity B ec au se C ato n d id n o t ch allen g e th e a d m issio n o f a n y e v id en ce o f C ato n ’s u n c h a r g e d , d ru g - r e la te d a c tiv ity in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w o n ly f o rp la in e r r o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . E d o u a r d , 4 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . “U n d e rp la in e r r orr e vi e w , the r e m us tbe ( 1) a n e r r or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s the defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” Id. at13 43 n. 7. A ttri al , the di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed 2 e v id e n c e o f

d ru g - r e la te d a c tiv ity tie d to C a to n b u t n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. S uc h e vi de nc e i nc l ude d the us e of i l l e ga l drugs by C a t on, i l l e ga l drugs a nd drug paraph ernal i a f

ou nd i n C at on ’ s r es i dence duri ng the execut i on of the se ar ch w a r r a n t a n d th e u s e o f

ille g a l d ru g s b y o th e r s in C a to n ’s r e s id e n c e . F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) p r o v id e s th a t [ e ] vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s not adm i ss i bl e t o p ro ve the chara ct erof a pers on i n o rder t o sh o w ac tio n i n co n fo rm i ty th erew i th . Itm ay, ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or ot her purp o se s, such as pr oof of m ot i ve , oppo rtuni ty , i nt e nt , pr e pa r a t i on, pl a n, know l e dge , i de nt i ty , ora bs e nc e o f m i s t a ke or a c c id e n t . . . .“Evidenc e, not par t of the crime charg ed b ut pertainingto the chain of events e xplaining 3 the context, moti ve[,] and set- up o f th e cr ime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circums t an ce s with the charg ed crime, or for ms an integral a

nd natural part of a

n acc ount of the crime, or is nece s sary

to complete the story

of the c rime for

the jury .” Edoa

urd, 485 F .3d at 1344 (q uo tin gUnite d S tate s v . M c L e an, 13 8 F .3 d 1 39 8, 14 03 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) ). “ An d evide nc eis inextrica bly intertwined with the evidencereg arding the charg ed off ense if it for

ms an ‘integral a

nd natural pa rt of the witness’s acc ounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicte d.’” Id. (quotingUnited States v. Foster , 889 F.2d 1049, 1053 ( 11th Cir. 1989)). See Fed. R . Evid. 403 (“A lthough releva nt, evidenc e may be ex cluded if its probative value 4 is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or nee dless presentation of cumulative evidenc e.” ) . 10 F ed . R . E v i d . 4 0 4 (b ). B efo re w e ap p l y R u l e 4 0 4 (b ), h o w ev er, w e m u stfi rst d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e e v id e n c e o f th e u n c h a r g e d , d ru g - r e la te d a c tiv ity tie d to C a to n is e x tr in s ic o rin tr in s ic . W e h a v e h e ld th a t “e v id e n c e o f c r im in a l a c tiv ity o th er th an th e ch arg ed o ffen se i s not ‘e x tr in s ic ’ u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) , a n d th u s f a lls out s i de the s c ope of

the R ul e , w he n i ti s ‘ ( 1) a n unc ha r ge d of f e ns e w hi c h a r os e out of the s a m e tr a ns a c t i on ors e r i e s of tr a ns a c t i ons a s the c ha r ge d of f e ns e , ( 2) n e c e s s a r y to c o m p le te th e s to r y o f th e c r im e , o r( 3 ) in e x tr ic a b ly in te r tw in e d w ith the e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the c ha r ge d of f e ns e . ’ ” E doua r d, 485 F . 3d a t1344 ( quot i ng

3 U n i t ed S t at es v . B ak er, 4 3 2 F . 3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 0 5 n . 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 )). “ N o n eth el ess, e vi de nc e of

c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty othe rtha n the c ha r ge d of f e ns e , w he the ri ns i de or o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f

R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) , m u s t s till s a tis f y th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

R u le 4 0 3 .” 4 I d . H e r e , A ngul o’ s a c c ountof w ha ttr a ns pi r e d dur i ng hi s va r i ous i nt e r a c t i onsSee United States v. Z apat a, 1 3 9 F. 3 d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A def endant who 5 enter s a not guilty

plea make s intent a material issue which imposes a substantial burden on the g overnment to prove intent, which it m ay prove by

qualifying Rule 404(b) evidence a bsent aff irmative steps by

the def endant to remove intent as an issue.” ). Additionally , we have held that “evidence of

prior per sonal druguse to prove intent in a subsequent prosecution for distribution of narc otics” may

be admitted. United States v. B utler, 102 F .3d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir. 1997). 11 w i th C a t on doe s notc ons t i tut e e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e a nd, the r e f or e , f a l l s out s i de the s c ope of R ul e 404( b) be c a us e i tw a s “ l i nke d i n t i m e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s w i th the c ha r ge d c r i m e [ s ] , ” i t“ f

or m [ e d] a n i nt e gr a l a nd na tur a l pa r tof a n a c c ountof

the cr i m e[ s] , ” a nd C at on has notshow n t hati tre sul t ed i n u nfai r pre j ud i ce or j ury c o n f u s io n u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 . E d o u a r d , 4 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 4 . T he re m ai ni ng t es t i m on y a nd ph ys i ca l evi dence of uncharged, drug -r el at ed a c tiv ity is c o r r e c tly c h a r a c te r iz e d a s e x tr in s ic . W e e m p lo y a th r e e - p a r t te s t in r e ga r d t o the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 404( b) : ( 1) the ev i d en ce m u stb e rel ev an tt o an i ssu e o th er th an ch aract er; (2 ) su ffi ci en tp ro o f m u st e xi s tt o f i nd tha tthe de f

e nda ntc om m i tt e d the pr i ora c t ; a nd ( 3) the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the evi dence ca nn otbe subst ant i al l y out w ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce . U ni t ed S ta te s v . P e r e z , 4 4 3 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e d is c e r n n o p la in e r r o rin the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntbe c a us e the e vi de nc e i n que s t i on w a s e i the rr e l e va nt t o C a t on’ s i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e na r c ot i c s orde m ons tr a t e d a n a bs e nc e of m i s t a ke or a c c i de nt . I n a ddi t i on, the t e s t i m oni a l a nd phy s i c a l e vi de nc e a dm i tt e d by the

5 d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to m e e t th e s e c o n d p r o n g o f o u rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) te s t.Caton does not argue that the testimony concerning the ledg er w as inac curate or that there 6 was a n insufficient ba sis to conclude that the item wa s a drugledg er. 12 F in ally, th e d istrict co u rt g av e th re e s ets o f lim it in g in stru ctio n s a s to th e ju ry ’s perm i ss i bl e use of evi dence re l at i ng t o u ncharged, drug -r el at ed ac t i vi ty, w hi ch a l l e vi a t e d a ny unf

a i rpr e j udi c e tha tm a y ha ve r e s ul t e d. B . W h e th e rth e D is tr ic t C o u r t C o m m itte d P la in E r r o rb y A llo w in g a D e te c tiv e to Ident i fy an It em S ei ze d from C at on ’ s R es i dence as a D rug L edger and T here af t er A dm i tt i ng such It em i nt o E vi dence W e app l y the sa m e a nal yt i ca l fr am ew ork for C at on ’ s s ec on d argum entthat w e use d i n con si deri ng hi s f i rs t . T he di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed t es t i m on y abo utan a l l e ge d “ drug l e dge r ” f

ound by the pol i c e i n C a t on’ s r e s i de nc e dur i ng the e xe c ut i on of

a s e a r c h w a r r a nta nd s ubs e que nt l y a l l ow e d the l e dge ri t s e l f t o be a dm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e . B e c a us e the r e c or d s uppor t s a c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of the l e dge ra s e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e , w e appl y ourthr e e - pa r tR ul e 404( b) t e s t . I n l i ghtof o u rd e c is io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . H ic k s , 7 9 8 F .2 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) , in w h ic h w e h e ld th a t a tr ia l c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g in to e vi de nc e va r i ous di a r y e ntr i e s r e f l e c t i ng drug tr a ns a c t i ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthe l edger w as re l evantt o t he i ss ue of i nt entfor the offens es w i th w hi ch C at on w as c ha r ge d. 6 C a to n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e le d g e rw a s s u b s ta n tia lly o u twe i g h e d b y th e d a n g e ro f u n f a i rp r e j u d i c e i s wi th o u tm e r i t . Mu c h a s we13

c o n c lu d e d in H ic k s , th e e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e w a s “n o t s o h e in o u s th a t th e ju r y w o u ld be l i ke l y t o c onvi c tf

orthe e xtr i ns i c of

f e ns e [ ] r a the rtha n the c ha r ge d one [ ] a nd the ev i d en ce w as u n l i k el y t o co n fu se o r m i sl ead th e [j u ry] . ” Id . at4 5 2 . A d d i t i o n al l y, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i ons s uf f i c i e nt l y di s pe l l e d a ny l ur ki ng da nge rof un fa i r pre

j ud i ce . C . W hether the D i stri ctC ou rtC om m i tt ed P l ai n E rr or by S ub m i tt i ng the V er di ct F orm t o t he Jury on C ou ntF ou r C a to n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in s u b m ittin g th e v e r d ic t f o r m w ith re spec tt o C ou ntF ou r, as the form di d n otprov i de the j ury w i th a m ea ns by w hi ch t o i nd i ca t e w hether i tfoun d t hatC at on vi ol at ed 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ) by e i ther ( 1) c a r r y i ng a f

i r e a r m “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” a drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e , or ( 2) pos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m “ i n f

ur the r a nc e of

” s uc h a n of

f e ns e . M or e ove r , C a t on ar gu es thatthe verdi ctform di d n otal l ow the j ury t o i nd i ca t e w hether i tw as una ni m ous i n f

i ndi ng tha tthe s a m e ty pe of vi ol a t i on ha d oc c ur r e d. I n a ddi t i on, he cont ends thatthe j ury l i kel y c on vi ct ed hi m un der the st atut e’ s “ ca rry” l angu age, b u t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t s u c h a c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e C a to n o n ly re tri eved the shot gu n w hen A ng ul o asked hi m t o d o so. A cc ordi ng l y, he ar gu es tha t , a s one a l t e r na t i ve gr ound f ora c onvi c t i on unde r§ 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) i s not s u s ta in a b le , a n d it is n o t c le a rf r o m th e r e c o r d w h e th e rth e ju r y f o u n d h im g u ilty u n d e rth e “in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

” o r“d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to ” la n g u a g e , w e s h o u ldUnite d St ate s v . Wil liams, 52 6 F .3 d 1 31 2, 13 21 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 8) (“A j ur

y is p re sume d to 7 follow the district court’ s instructions.”). 14 vaca t e a nd re m and for a new tri al on C ou ntF ou r. B e c a u s e C a to n d id n o t r a is e a n y o b je c tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e a g a in r e v ie w o n ly f

o rp la in e r r o r . S e e E d o u a r d , 4 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 . C a to n ’s a r g u m e n ts c onc e r ni ng the ve r di c tf or m f orC ountF ourdo notpe r s ua de . H e poi nt s t o no cont rol l i ng l aw fr om the S up re m e C ou rtor ou r c i rc ui tre qu i ri ng the use of a di ff er entverdi ctform and d oes nott ake i ss ue w i th t he suff i ci ency of the di stri ct court ’ s j ury i nstruct i on as t o C ou ntF ou r. Indeed, C at on corr ec t l y c on ce des that any a rgum entthatthe l aw re qu i re s the use of adi ff er entverdi ctform runs coun t er t o o ur deci si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. V erbi t skay a, 40 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 34 (11t h C i r. 2005) ( hol di ng tha ta di s tr i c tc our tne e d noti ns truc ta j ur y t o una ni m ous l y a gr e e on w hi c h of the gove r nm e nt ’ s f

oura l t e r na t i ve the or i e s s uppor t e d the ve r di c t ) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on s on C ou ntF ou r unam bi gu ou sl y i nform the j ury that C o u n t F o u rw a s c h a r g e d in tw o s e p a r a te w a y s a n d th a t th e y m u s t u n a n im o u s ly a g r e e u p o n th e w a y i n w h i c h Ca t o n c o mmi tt e d th e v i o l a t i o n . W e ma y p r e s u me thatthe j ury f

ol l ow ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on s a nd un ani m ou sl y f ou nd that C at on w as gu i l ty und eratl ea ston e of the w ay s of vi ol at i ng § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ). 7 F i na l l y , w e de c l i ne C a t on’ s i nvi t a t i on t o s pe c ul a t e on the i nt e r na l m e c ha ni c s of the j ur y ’ s de l i be r a t i ons r e ga r di ng C ountF our . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe15

di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i tpl a i n e r r ori n s ubm i tt i ng the ve r di c tf or m f orC ount F o u r t o th e j u ry. CONCL US I ON C a t on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e r r ori n a dm i tt i ng t e s t i m ony a nd i t e m s c onc e r ni ng unc ha r ge d, drug- r e l a t e d a c t i vi ty i nt o e vi de nc e a nd i n ut i l i z i ng a n i m pr ope rve r di c tf or m . W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c o m m it p la in e r r o r . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. AF F I RME D.