IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30235

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAIME JAUREGUI,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-67

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Jauregui challenges his convictions for conspiracy to violate the 

Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371,

and for possession of unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 

5861(d), and 5871. Jauregui contends the court’s allowing evidence of his prior 

felony conviction violated Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) because it 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30235 Document: 00513352267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2016
No. 15-30235

2

was unduly prejudicial, and was used to show he acted in conformance with a 

criminal disposition.

Because Jauregui made a timely objection to the introduction of his prior 

felony conviction at trial, the evidentiary ruling is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. E.g., United States v. Sumlin, 489 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2007). 

We “are not required to reverse a conviction” if an error is harmless, that is, 

does not affect substantial rights. United States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592, 599 (5th 

Cir. 2011). 

The evidence’s admissibility hinges, in part, on whether it is intrinsic or 

extrinsic to the charged offense. E.g., Sumlin, 489 F.3d at 689. Here, evidence 

of Jauregui’s felony conviction was intrinsic because it was a necessary part of 

the offenses’ narrative; therefore, it was admissible, as discussed infra. See

United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996). Evidence of the 

felony conviction demonstrated why Jauregui could not legally purchase the 

weapons himself, and explained his enlisting a “strawman”, Polk, to purchase

the weapons. It also established that he, rather than Polk and an undercover 

federal agent, initiated the transaction, refuting his defense of entrapment. 

Moreover, a defendant puts his predisposition for criminal activity at issue 

when he alleges entrapment, and evidence of prior convictions may be 

admitted to rebut such a defense, provided that the probative value of such 

evidence outweighs the potential for unfair prejudice. United States v. Parrish, 

736 F.2d 152, 156 (5th Cir. 1984).

Because Jauregui’s prior conviction constituted intrinsic evidence, it was 

not subject to Rule 404(b). Furthermore, Jauregui’s argument that the 

admission of the conviction ran afoul of Rule 403 is unpersuasive given that: 

the nature of his felony was never mentioned to the jury; the only testimony 

regarding the conviction was from Polk during his explanation of why Jauregui 

 Case: 15-30235 Document: 00513352267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2016
No. 15-30235

3

approached him; and the court followed that testimony with a limiting 

instruction. 

In the alternative, assuming, arguendo, the court erred in admitting the 

felony conviction, overwhelming evidence supported that Jauregui initiated 

the transaction, carried on negotiations for nearly a year, drove to Louisiana 

several times to plan and coordinate the details, and worked to finalize the 

purchase. For example, the Government presented over 80 recorded telephone 

conversations and four videotapes showing Jauregui negotiating the 

transaction. Considering the evidence supporting his conviction and the 

court’s limiting instruction, any assumed error in the admitting evidence of the 

prior felony conviction was harmless. United States v. Carrillo, 660 F.3d 914, 

928 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding erroneous admission of Rule 404(b) evidence was 

harmless in light of “strong evidence” of guilt and the district court’s limiting 

instruction).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30235 Document: 00513352267 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2016