[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10770

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00519-AT-AJB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOSES A. DAMIANI,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(January 7, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Moses Damiani appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud 

Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1344, respectively. On appeal, 

Damiani argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting extrinsic 

evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding a New York real estate 

transaction in which he participated. Damiani contends that, although not entirely 

lacking in probative value, the evidence was highly prejudicial because he could 

have explained the differences between the New York transaction and the instant 

transaction only by waiving his right not to testify.

We review a district court’s admission of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) 

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 

2008). Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of 

other bad acts to prove a defendant’s character, but permits the admission of such 

evidence for other purposes such as showing intent. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). We 

apply a three-part test to determine the admissibility of 404(b) evidence: (1) the 

evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; 

(2) sufficient evidence must be presented for a jury to find that the defendant 

committed the extrinsic act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not 

be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403. United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 

(11th Cir. 2007). In reviewing issues under Rule 403, we view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and 

Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

minimizing its prejudicial impact. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1284 

(11th Cir. 2003). Additionally, any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of 

404(b) evidence can be diminished by appropriate limiting instructions. United 

States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2011).

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we

affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 404(b) 

evidence regarding the New York transaction. The New York transaction evidence 

was highly probative of Damiani’s intent, which was a contested issue at trial. 

Furthermore, the district court diminished the potential prejudicial impact of the 

New York transaction evidence by providing multiple limiting instructions to the 

jury. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10770 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3