# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 12 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Arm an do Cas ti ll o Val eri o

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

10 , 20 18 Fil ed : Ap ril 27 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

A jury c o n v i c te d Arm an do Vale rio of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et a mi n e i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(A), an d 84 6.Dur in g tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n un de r Fed eral Ru le 1
of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) to in tro du ce a cert ifi ed co py of Vale rio ’s pr io r st at e-co ur t

co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e wit h in t e nt to di st rib ut e. Vale rio

a p p e a l s, co nt en di ng th e pr io r co nv ic ti on was irr el ev an t an d co ns ti tu te s m er e
pr op en si ty ev id en ce th at f a i ls to m eet th e Ru le 40 4( b) st an da rd fo r ad m is si on

. W e affi rm

.

Acco rd in g to th e ev id en ce at tri al

, Vale rio an d se ve ral ot he rs were in vo lv ed in

a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e th ro ug ho ut th e st at e of Io wa. No fewer
th an se ve n witn es se s tes ti fie d at tria l th at th ey reg ul arl y ob ta in ed va rio us qu an ti ti es of m et ha m

ph et am in e fro m Vale rio

. And Vale rio ’s co co ns pi r a t or s al so te st ifi ed

, d e s c r ib in g at le ng th th e pr oc es s by whi ch th ey wou ld acq ui re an d res el l th e d r u g s

. To de fen d ag ai ns t th es e ch arg es , Vale rio ha s co ns is te nt ly as se rte d th at al l

m et ha m ph et am in e fo un d was fo r pe rs on al us e to su pp o r t h i s ad di ct io n. In or de r to
de m on st rat e th at Vale rio k n e w t h e f ul l sc op e of th e co ns pi racy an d was a wil li ng
pa rti ci pa nt th erei n, th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce a cert ifi ed co py of Vale rio ’s
20 04 Io wa co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e le ss th an fiv e gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t co nd it io na ll y ex cl ud ed th is ev id en ce
pr io r to tri al in or de r to se e wha t th e tri al ev id en ce sh owe d, it rev is it ed th e m at te r du rin g tri al an d ru le d th at ev id en ce of th e co nv ic ti on was ad m is si bl e. Vale rio arg ue s th is was i n e rro r.

“ W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it ev id en ce of [a d efen da nt ’s]

pr io r ba d act s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n,” an d we wil l rev ers e “ on ly whe n th e ev id en ce cl earl y ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s

p r o p e n s i ty to co m

m it cri m in al act s.” Uni te d St at es v. Bu ck ne r, 86 8 F.3 d 68 4, 6 8 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ Evi de nc e of a cri m e, wro ng , or

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. Stra nd , Chi ef Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1 Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-ot he r act is no t ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s ch a r a c t e r i n or de r to sh ow th at on a

pa rti cu la r oc cas io n th e pe rs on act ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arac te r.” Fed R. Evi d.
4 0 4( b) (1 ). Bu t, in a cri m in al cas e, “ [t]hi s ev id en ce m ay be ad m is si bl e fo r a n o t h e r
pu rp os e, su ch as pr ov in g m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pr ep arat io n, pl an , kn owl ed ge , i de nt it y , ab se nc e of m is ta ke

, or la ck of acci de nt .” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4 ( b ) ( 2 )

. Ult im at el y , th e ev id en ce i s ad m is si bl e if it “ (1 ) is rel ev an t t o a m at eri al is su e, (2 ) is
si m il ar in ki nd an d cl os e in ti m e to th e c r i me ch arg ed

, (3 ) is pr ov en by a
pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, an d (4 ) do es no t ha ve a pr ejud ic ia l effe ct th at

su bs t a n t i a l l y ou twei gh s th e pr ob at iv e va lu e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 85 6 F.3 d
11 87 , 11 91 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Vale rio arg ue s th at th e pr io r co nv ic ti on was irr el ev an t an d to o rem ot e in ti m e. As to rel ev an ce, “ [e]vi de nc e of pr io r dr ug de al i ng s is rel ev an t to th e m at eri al is su e of whe t h e r [ V a le rio ] ha d th e req ui si te in te nt to en te r in to a co ns pi racy.” Id

. (fi rs t
al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Vale rio li ke ns th is cas e to
Uni te d St at es v. Turn er, 78 1 F.3 d 37 4, 39 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), in whi ch we were cri ti cal
of th e go ve rn m en t’s va gu e as se rti on s, wit ho ut m or e, th at a pr io r co nv ic ti on was rel ev a nt to sh ow th e de fen da nt ’s in te nt an d kn owl ed ge

. Here, ho wev er, Vale rio pl aced hi s kn owl ed ge or in te nt at is su e du rin g hi s co un se l’s cro ss ex am in at io n of th e
go ve rn m en t’s wit ne ss es , in whi ch co un se l rep eat ed ly di re c t ed qu es ti on in g at th e

sm al l am ou nt of m et ha m

ph et am in e fo un d in Vale rio ’s po ss es si on , Vale rio ’s pe rs on al

us e h a b i t s , an d whe th er ot he rs co ul d ha ve be en res po ns ib le fo r th e na rco ti cs or
pa rap he rn al ia

. The go ve rn m en t’s st rat eg y to co un te r th is de fen se was to de m on st rat e Vale rio ’s in te nt to en te r in to a dr ug co ns pi racy, an d “ [e]vi de nc e of pr io r dr ug de al in gs is rel ev an t to th e m at eri al is su e of whe th er [Val eri o] ha d th e req ui si te in te nt to en te r in to a co ns pi racy. ” Ja ck so n, 85 6 F.3 d at 11 91 (fi rs t al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W it h res pe ct to th e remo t e n e s s i n ti m e be twee n th e pr io r co nv ic ti on an d th e

cu rren t of fen se , t he si x or se ve n y ears be tw e e n t h e de fen da nt ’s r el eas e fro m pr is on

-3

-an d th e co nd uc t un de rlyin g th e cu rren t of fen se do es no t di m in is h th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. Walk er, 4 70 F.3d 12 71 , 1 27 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng pr io r co nv ic ti on s ad m is si bl e whe re ei gh t y ears pa ss ed be twee n rel eas e fro m
pr is on an d t he co nd uc t u nd erl y in g t he off en se ).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of Vale rio ’s
20 04 co nv ic ti on

. 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Vale rio al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t gr an ti ng hi s req ue st fo r 2

a do wnwar d de pa rtu re, bu t he co nc ed es th at th is is su e is no t rev ie wab le un de r cu rren t
pr eced en t ab se nt ci rc u m st an ces no t pr es en t he re. See Uni te d St at es v. Bryant
, 60 6 F.3 d 91 2, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [I]n ge ne ral ,[t]he di sc ret io na ry de ni al of a m ot io n fo r do wnwar d de pa rtu re is un rev ie wab le un le ss th e co ur t fai le d to reco gn iz e it s au th or it y to de pa rt.” (se co nd alt erat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

-4

-