## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1661 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C RI S TOBAL V AR GAS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cr-00630- 1

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 5, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 10, 2012

Befo re R OV NER, W OO D , an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j ury convi cted Cri sto b al Varga s o fat tem p tin g to posse ss, with a n i ntent to distr ibute, m or e than 500 gr am s o fcoc ai ne i n vi ol ati on o f 21 U
. S
. C. § § 84 1( a) ( 1) a nd 8 46
. Va r g as c l ai m ed th athe was j us t buy i nga truc kwhenhe a ppea r ed i n the pa r k i ng l ot ofa l oca l ph arm acy w i th a shoe bo x stuffed w i th $4 5,0 00 in c as h . H e c laim ed th at w as th e re as on for h is num er ous t el eph one conver sat i ons w i th Esteb ean Roj o,2 N o. 11

- 1661 the g ove rnm ent’ s co nfi d en tialso urce and, w hy he w as i n the pa r k i ng l o t, wi th the mon e y, o n the da y he w as ar re ste d. Bu t th e gove rnm ent e stabl i shed at tr i althat the Drug En f or cem ent Agency instr ucted Roj o to get c los e to V ar ga s as p ar t of an in ve st iga tio n in t o “ p o s sib le co ca i ne t r affi ck i ng, ” Var g as a nd Roj o ’ s co nv er sa ti o ns co nt aine d c o unt l es s co ded r efer en ces t o c o ca i ne a nd c o c a i ne t r a ffi c k i ng, a nd V a r g a s t oo k a “ s ub s t a nt i a l s t e p” i n h i s a t t e mpt t o p o s s e s s c o c a i n e b y a p p e a r i n g att he pha r m ac y ’ s par k i ngl o t wi th$ 45 , 00 0 i n c as h. Var g as no w appe al s hi s co nv i ct i o n, a r g uin g tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed bya l l o wi ngRoj o t o t es ti fy t ha t he h ad b ee n to ld to ge t clos e to V ar ga s be c au se o f“p os sib le coca i ne tr affi cki ng. ” W e a gr ee w i th Var gas thatthe sta tem en t sh o ul d no t ha ve b ee n a dm i tt ed, b utthe cou rt’s er ro r w as h ar m les s in ligh t o f t h e o v e rw h elm in g e vid en c e s h ow in g V ar ga s’s gu ilt b ey on d a re as on a b le d o u bt. Vargas also fi nd s error in th e d istri ct cou rt’s re fusalto adm i t a por ti on o fhi s v i deotaped ar re st du ring wh i ch he blurte d, “Iw as here buyi ng a tr uck, m an ! ” He b e l i e v e s the s t a t e men ts ho ul d h a v e b e e n a dm i tte d und erthe doctr i ne o fco m ple tene ss . W e di sag re e. That doctr i ne i s co nfined by the st ri cture s o fthe hear say rul e, and Varg as cannot identi fy a hear sayexce pti on that appli es. Final l y, Varg as cl ai m s that he m ust be gi ven a n ew tr i albec ause the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to in for m th e jur y t h at itc o u ld n otco n vic t h im for s im p ly bei ng atthe scene ofa cri m e. But the j ury charg e a dequatel y c ove re d Varga s’ s defense theo ryand requir ed the j ury to fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e d oubt that Varga sN o. 11

- 1661 3 i ntended to posse ss coca in e an d he knowing l y t oo k a substa nti alst ep to w ar d that a i m . S o Varga s’ s r eq u es ted “mer e pr es en ce ” i ns tr uc tio n was no t r el ev an t an d the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not e rrbyr efusi ng to gi ve it. Fo r these r ea so ns , we affi r m Va r g as ’ s co nv i ct i o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND A t s om e point i n 200 8, the Drug E n forcem ent Agency recei ve d i nf o r m at i o n abo utc o ca i ne b eingt r affi ck ed o ut of a m u ffler sh op on Sou th Sto n y Isla n d A v e n u e in C h icago . C h icago Po l i ce Offi cerTer ra nce Loo ney, a tas k f o r ce o ffi ce r de ta i l ed to the DEA, s pea r he ade d a n invest igat i on into the s hop. Offi cerLooneyi denti fi ed C ristobal Vargas as a susp ect an d coord inated the age nc y’s re quest that Este b ea n Roj o, a confi denti ali nfo rm ant, po se a s a dr ugde al erfr o m M ex i co t o i nfi l tr at e the dr ug ring . T he DE A c ho s e R oj o b e c a us e h e i s fr o m M exi co, sp ea ks flu en t Sp an i sh , ow n s a larg e s p or ts u tilit y v eh icle w i th M e xi c a n l i c e ns e p l a t e s , a nd h e h a d b e e n a DE A co nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t m o r e th anthi r tyt i m es i n the l astf ourt een y ear s. Befo re send i ng R oj o to the m uffl ershop, Offi cerLooney an d o th era g en ts g av e hi m de ta i l ed i ns tr uct i o ns abo ut w hat to do and w hy. A gents descr ibed the i nvest i gat i on a s on e in t o “ p o s s ib le c o c a in e tr a ff ic k in g,” sh o w e d R ojo a pho to g r a p h o fV a r g a s , a n d t o l d h i m t o d r i v e h i s S UV to th e m u ff ler sh op to see i f V argas w as w il ling to pu rchase coca i ne. A s part o fthi s pl an, Roj o w oul d app earto b e e n ga ge d in a te lep h on ic d ru g d ea l w ith a n ind ivi du alnam ed “Pepe, ” who w as actual l y a n und er cove r4 N o. 11

- 1661 offi cer . Roj o and Pepe w oul d discuss t h e deal vi a a twow ay , w alk ie-t alk ie fe at u re av aila b le on R ojo’s m ob ile phone, u s i ng“ na r c o t i c s l i ng o . ” T he a g e nt s wa nt ed Var g as t o he arthe pa r ti cul ar s o fthi s pur po r te d dr ug de a l, s us pe c t i ng tha t Va r g a s mi g ht r e s po nd b y t r y i ng to pu rchas e drugs fro m Roj o. W he n Roj o ar ri ved atthe m uffl ersho p on A ugust 1 , 20 08 , he d id as ins tr u c te d . U sin g t h e w alk ie-t alk ie featur e o n h i s pho ne , Roj o i ni ti at ed a te l eph o ne c o nvers a t i o n wi th Pe pe. R oj o c hi r pe d, “ Ho w i s La r e do ? ” P e pe r e s po nd e d, “ Ho t, h o ti n e v e r y wa y . ” Roj o the n c o nt i nu e d, “H ow are the guys? ” Thi s s ol i ci ted Pe p e’s r epl y, “They al re ady j um ped overthe bor der.” A ll ofthi s l anguage i s co de f o r c o ca i ne t r affi ck i ng . Appar en tly o ve r he ari ng Roj o ’ s a nd P e pe ’ s c o nv e r s a t i o n, V a r g a s i nt e rj ecte d: “W hat k i nd o fguys are these ?” Roj o answ er ed, “They ar e goo d ones . ” N ot done, Varg as proce eded, “W hat c ol or ar e th e g uy s? Gr ee n o r W hi te ?” Roj o c l ar i fi ed th atthe “gu ys” wer e whi te a nd, a fte r Va r g as i nqui r ed ab o ut p ric e, p ro m ise d a go od d ea l. Over the n ex t few days, Varg as and Roj o had al m ost a doze n phone co nver sat ion s about the “guys , ” a l l o f whi c h w e r e r e c o r de d. Offi c e r Lo o ne y a nd s e v e r a l DE A age nts, m eanw hile, co nti nued to m ove f or w ar d w i th thei r i nvest i gat i on, co nd ucti ng sur vei l l ance o n Varg as to c o nfi r m hi s empl o y m en t at th e m uffl ers ho p a nd provi ding Roj o w i th addit i onali nstr ucti ons on how to en ga ge h i m i n a drugdeal

. On A ugust 7, 20 08, Offi cer Lo o ne y t o l d R oj o to c al l Va r g as a nd s ch edu l e th e ex ch an g e to o cc ur i n th e par k i ng l o t o f a W al g r ee nsN o. 11

- 1661 5 pharm acy l oca ted nearthe m u ffl ersho p. Offi cerLooney dir ecte d Roj o to cal l Vi nce Ozuna, ano therund er cove r o ffi ce r, whenRoj o had con fi r m ed th atVa r g as b r o ug ht th e m one y he p rom ised to com p lete the d eal. Roj o’s c all w ou ld se rv e a s t h e c ov er t “ ar re st sign al.” Varga s ar ri ved at the W al gr eens parking l ot in a van dr i ve n b y a no th eri ndi vi dual

. Ca r r y i nga sh oe bo x c o ntai ni ng $4 5, 000 i n cash, Varg as l eft th e v an and ente re d th e pa ssen ger’s seat of R oj o’s vehic le . T his en tire exchange w as surr epti ti ousl y re cor ded

. Roj o and V argas d iscus sed the d eal, and Roj o req u e s t ed that Varga s “[g]o a h e a d , c o u n ti t
. ” Va r g a s r e s p o n d e d , “ No —ho w w e gon na cou nt i t? .
. . H ow a r e [ w e] gonn a cou nt i t? I d on’t thi nk we can co unt al l o fthi s here

. . . T h e j ob i s a l l ther e. I t’ s co unted al re ady. ” Ap peased, Roj o then det ailed h ow th e t ra n sa c ti o n w ou ld w or k: P ep e w ou ld p u ll up besid e Rojo’ s veh ic le i n a black truc k w ith th e d oors o pens o Va r g as c o ul d “ [ g ] r ab the pac k ag e an d ta k e . . . the knapsack

. ” Var gas i nq u i re d, “I s i t a l l es cam i ta orwh at?” Roj o answ er ed, “You’ re go nna see i t. I fyou d on’ t l i ke i t, y o u g i ve i t ba ckt o me. I ’ l l s ta y he r e wi thy o u. And besi des that, I ’ m gi vi ng you the othe r tw o, so pl eas e don’t[ m ess with] m e, plea se . ” Var gas then cal l ed Offi cer Oz un a a nd t o l d h i m t ha t“[ e ] v e r y thingi s r e a dy

. ” DE A ag en ts a r r i ve d s ho r tly a fte r r ec ei vingthe sign ala nd ar re ste d Varga s. W h ile effe c tu at in g t h e a rre st, on e o f th e a ge n ts h ad h is gu n d ra w n an d as ke d V ar ga s, “W h at i s t h at ?
. . . W h at is th at ? The r e’ s do pe o r m o ne y i n th er e? ” ( r efer r i ng to the sh o e bo x. ) Var g as bl ur te d, “T he r e’ s m o ne y . ” The a g en t6 N o. 11

- 1661 th ena sk ed ho w m uchmone y was in th e sh o e bo x, a nd V ar gas excl ai m ed, “I w as here buyi ng a tr uck, m an !” A ll ofthi s was r eco rded, but th e vid eo tape e nd ed a few secon d s later. A gr and j ury i nd i cted Var gas o n on e count o fat
tem ptin g to poss ess , with the i ntent to dist ribute, 5 0 0 g r a ms o r mo r e o fc o c a i ne i n v i o l a t i on of2 1 U. S
. C. § § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . A ttr ia l, th e go v e r n m e n tp u tR ojo o n the s ta nd. Roj o t o l d the j ur y tha t th e DEA had instr ucted hi m to “ h ave a c onver sat i on with M r. Varg as, tr y t o ge t c los e t o M r. V ar ga s b ec au se of a p os sib le

— because o fposs ibl e co cai ne tr affi cki ng and tr y t o go to hi s a ut o s ho p. ” De fe ns e c o un s e l im m e di a t e l y o bj e c t e d, re quested a si debar, and m ove d fo r a m i str i al

. Counsel ar gu ed th at th e g o v er n m en t’s qu es tio n elic ite d u n fair ly prej ud i ci alpro pensi ty evi dence. The go vernm ent di sag r ee d, po i nt i ngo uttha t Roj o “ di dn’ t sa y a ny thi ng about the defendant’s bac kgr ound” and he had been “ins truct ed no t to t al kabo ut ” o th erdr ugde al s. The co ur t o ve r r ul ed defen se c o uns el ’ s o bj ec ti o n a nd f o und that the s tat em ent was notunfa i rl y pr ej ud i ci albec ause i t di d not r efer ence a “ parti cul artr ansact i on. ” Defense counse l di d no t r e qu e s t, a nd the c o ur t di d no t g i ve a l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on t o the j ury re gar ding Roj o’ s s tat em ent. The go ver nm ent a l so subm i tte d as e vi dence the re cor dings and tr anscr i pts ( tr ansl ate d i nto En gl i sh) o fte n conve rs ati ons between Roj o and Varga s. The conver sati ons occur re d at v ar i ous t i m es between A ugu st 4 , 20 08 and A ugust 7, 2 00 8. On the c al l s, Roj o and Varga s di sc u ss ed “g u ys ,” “p re t t y w h ite
. . . ca rp et s,” “t ick et s,”N o. 11

- 1661 7 “gu erej as,” and “sq ua res”; Roj o testifi ed th at th ese w ere code words forco cai ne. The two m en al so tal ked pri ce. Roj o i nfo rm ed t h e j ury that, ato ne poi nt o n the tapes, when he r es po nde d t o a que st i o n b y Va r g as r eg ar di ng “the num ber ” o fthe “guys ” bysa yin g “ they coul d be tw enty, ” he m eant that the c osto fthe coca i ne would be $20, 000 per ki l ogr am . Speci alA gent Ch ar l es Baum gar tner cor robor ate d Roj o’ s interp re tat i on. H e co nfi rm ed that Var g as a nd Roj o us ed wor ds dur i ngthe i r c o nv er sati o ns th at n a r c o tic s d ea ler s fre q u en tly u se to av oid ex p licit ly t a l k i ngab o utthe dr ugb e i ngt r a ffi c k e d. Offi cerLoone y, S peci alA gent Baum gar tner, Invest i gat or Jam es Sc an n ell, an d Sp ec ial A ge n t K es tu tis Jod w alis each described thei r ro l e i n i nvest i gat i ng Varga s. T h ey att est ed to thei r surve i l l ance of V ar gas, thei r i nter preta
ti on o fhi s r eco rded conve rs ati ons as re fer encing cocai ne and coc ai ne t ra ffi cki ng, and thei r knowle dge o f th e a v e r a g e p r i c e f o r a k i l o g r a m o fc o c a i n e a tth e t i me ofV a r g a s ’ s a r r e s t
. T he g o v e r nme nta l s o p l a y e d a n e di t ed version of the su rveil lance vid e o show ing Va rgas’s ar re st . D efe n se co u n se l req u es te d in lim in e, an d ag ain dur i ng tr i al, th at f o r th e sa k e o f co m pl et en es s the j ury be s how n the part ofthe vi deo duri ng wh i ch Varg as sh r i ek ed, “ Iwas h er e buy i nga t r uck, man! ” The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed thos e r equests
. V ar ga s d i d n o t t es tify in h is ow n d efe n se . B u t h e d id prese nt S an tia go Vaca, wh o sta ted thatVarg as som eti m es pu rchas ed and r epai re d use d v ehi cl es for resal e. The corners tone o fVargas ’ s defense, acc or ding to defe nse c ounsel, was that he had al w ays int en ded to buy a tr uck, notco cai ne.8 N o. 11

- 1661 A t the cl ose o fthe evi dence, the dis tr i ct c ourti nstr ucted th e j ur y tha t “the g o ve r nm en t m us t pr o ve e ac h o fthe thre e f ol l owing propos i ti ons beyo nd a r eas onabl e doubt” : N um be r 1
. The defe nda nti nt en ded to po ss es s a co ntr ol l ed su b st an ce a nd i ntended to tr ansferi t t o an ot h er p er so n . . . . N um ber2. The defen d an t be l i eve d that the subst an c e w as so m e k in d of co n tr olle d su b st an c e. . . . N u m b er 3. The defendant knowing l y t oo k a substa nti al ste p toward posse ssing a contr ol l ed substa nce, i ntending to posse ss the c ontr ol l ed substa nce. A subst anti alst ep i s a n act beyo nd m er e pl an n ing o r pr epa r at i o n t o c o m m i t th e cr i m e butl ess tha n the l astactnece ssa ryto co m m i t the cr i m e. T o accom m od ate V argas’s p re-tri al r eq ue st, th e cou rt al so gave a “m er e a sso ci ati on” i nstr ucti on

— “T he de fen d a n t ’ s a s s o c i a t i o n wi th p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n a c r i me schem e i s not enough by i tse l f to prove his p ar ti ci pati on o r me mbe r s hi p i n the c r i me. ” Bu tthe c o ur tr ej e cted Varga s’ s r eco m m endati on t o i nstr uct the ju rythat “[ a] de fen dan t’ s pr es en ce a t th e sc en e o fa c r im e a nd knowle dge thata cri m e is b ein g c om m i tte d i s no t alo n e s u fficie n t t o e st ab lish th e d efe n d an t’s gu ilt.” The j ury convi cte d V ar gas . H e m ove d, post- tr i al, f or j u d gm en t o f ac q u itt al or , in th e a l t e r n a t i ve , a n ew tria l. H e ar g ue d tha t Roj o ’ s st at ementabo ut“p ossibl e co ca i ne tr affi cki ng ” sh oul d have be en excl ud ed, the port i on o f the v i deo du rin g which he sai d he w as buyi ng a tr uck shoul d have b ee n ad m i tte d, and the j ury shoul d haveN o. 11

- 1661 9

re cei ved hi s r eco m m ended instruct i on. The di str i ct cour t den i ed Varg as’ s m oti on a nd ente re d j ud gm ent. Varga s no w appeal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS On a p p e a l, V a r g a s i d e n t i fi e s th r e e t r i a l e r r o r s th a the m aint ains war r an t r ev er sa l

. F i r st, he a r g ue s thatthe dist ri ct c ourtco m m i tte d prej ud i ci al e rrorbyadm i tti ng Roj o’ s sta tem ent r ega rdi ng “pos sibl e co cai ne tr affi cki ng. ” S eco nd , he c onte nd s that th e d i str i ct c ourtvi ol ate d the r ule o fco m ple te n es s by not adm i tting the por ti on o f hi s ar r es t vi deo wher e he c l ai m ed th athe was b uy i ng a t ruck

— a s ta te m en t t h ath e c o n te n d s is ad m iss ible und erthe exci ted- utter ance or s tat e- of

- m i nd hear say ex cep tions. Fin all y, V argas insists th at th e d istri ct cou rt er re d by no t instr ucti ng the j ury on hi s “ m er e pr ese nce” theo ryo fthe case . The gov er nm ent di sag re es w i th ea ch of Vargas’s con ten tions an d argue s t h a t even i f th ere was er r o r, i t was ha r m l es s. W e addr es s ea chi ss ue i n tur n.

A. Ro j o ’ s St a t e me ntRe g ar di ng“ Po s s i bl e C o c a i ne Tra f f i cking” Sh ould Not H ave Bee n A dm i t t ed Varga s’ s fi rs t point o fco ntention i s that the di str i ct c ou rt shou ld h ave gran ted his m istri al m otion after Ro jo tes ti fi ed that DE A ag ents in st ructe d him to ge t cl ose to V ar ga s a s p a r t o f an inv es tig at ion int o “ p os sib le coca i ne tr affi cki ng. ” Var gas ar gues that Roj o’ s s tat em en t c on st itu te d u n fair ly p rej u d icia l p ro p e n sit y e vid en ce th at “invited the j ury to d raw a n i m p rop er i nfer-10 N o. 11

- 1661

en c e t h at h is m er e p re s e n c e a t t h e m u ffler sh op co u ld be con ne ct ed wi thdr ugt r affi ck i ng, thus makingthe gov er nm ent’ s c laim thathe intended to buy drugs f r o m Roj o s ee m m or e trus two r th y a nd r el i ab l e. ” The go ve rn m en t c ou n te rs th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly co nc l ude d tha t Roj o ’ s r emar kdi d no t r efer en ce a ny pa rt icul arbad ac t, and the sta tem ent was noto ffer ed to s ho w pro pen si ty
. Acco r di ngt o the g o ve rnm en t, the sta tem ent s i m ply p rovi ded f oundati on f orthe j ury to und er sta nd Roj o an d V ar gas ’ s s ubsequent inter acti ons. The go ver nm ent a l so ar gues that any e rr orwas harm l ess . W e r evi ew a dist rict co urt’ s deni alo fa m oti on f or m i str i alf oran abuse o fdi scr etion
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D a nfo rd , 43 5 F .3d 68 2, 68 6 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). O u r re vie w is “hi ghl y defer enti al, ” i d. , b ec au se th e t ria l co u rt“is in th e b es t po si ti o n t o de te r m i ne the s er i o us ne ss o fthe i nci dent i n questi on, part icu larl y a s i t r el ate s t o w hat has t ra nspir ed i n the cour se ofthe tr i al

. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v. Clarke, 227 F.3d 874 , 881 (7th C ir . 2000). W e, ther ef or e, “m ust a ffi rm unl ess we have a st ro ng convi cti on that the di str i ct c ourter re d,” i d. , and the er ro r com m i tted w as n oth ar m les s. Se eU ni t ed Sta tes v. M azzon e, 78 2 F
. 2d 757, 763 ( 7th Cir. 1 98 6) ( “I fthe i m pact s eem s t o have been ni l ( “ ha r ml e s s ” ) , tha t i s j us t a no the r wa y o f s a y i ngthat t h e t r i a l w a s n o tp o i s o n e d , d u e p r o c e s s w a s n o td e n i e d, re v e r s ib l e e r r o r wa s n o tc o mm i t t e d. ” )
. T he u l t i mat e i nquir y then i s “ w hetherthe defe nd ant wa s depri ved of a f ai r tr i al

. ” Clarke, 22 7 F
. 3d at 881. I n the prese nt cas e, Varg as base d his m i st rial m oti on on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a l l eg edl y e rr oneo us adm i ssi on o fN o. 11

- 1661 11 p rop en sity eviden ce. Th is i m p li cate s the district cou rt’s r ul i ng o n a n e v i de nt i a r y mat t e r, whi c h we a l s o re vi ew for an ab u se ofd isc re tio n . U nited Sta tes v. R o gers , 58 7 F
. 3d 81 6, 8 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. W e will rev er se o nl y i fthe recor d c o nt ains no e vi den ce o n whi chthe di st r i ctc ou rt coul d have r ati onal l y b ase d i ts rul i ng. Se ei d. The e vi den ti ar y di spu te i n thi s ca se r es ul ts fr o m the w a y the t wo s i de s c ha r a c t e r i z e R oj o ’ s s t a t e men t
. V ar gas cl ai m s that Roj o’ s tes ti m ony i s i m proper p ro pensi ty evi dence; the gov er nm ent m ai ntai ns that i t is di re ct e v i d e n c e o fth e c h a r g e d o ffe n s e . V a r g a s a r g u e s th a tt he g o ve r nm en t’ s a rgum en t r el i es o n the “ i ne xt r i cabl y i nte r twi ne d ” d oct r i ne tha t we o ve r r ul ed i n U nited Sta tes v. Gor m an , 6 13 F
. 3d 71 1, 7 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( “H en cef o r th, re so rtto ine x t r ica b le in te rt w in em en t is u n av aila b le w hen deter m i ni ng a theo ryo fadm i ssibi l ity .”)
. U nd er th at no w -defu nc t d octrine, “e v iden ce inex tricably i nt ertw i ned w ith char ged co nd uct i s, byi ts ver y t er m s, not othe r bad act s a nd therefor e, does noti m pli cate Rule 404(b ) at all

. ” Id. a t7 1 7

- 1 8
. E x a mpl e s o fwh a twe f o r m er l y c o ns i der ed admi ss ibl e unde r the do ct r i ne i nc l ude e vi den ce “ ne ce ss ar y t o pr o vi de th e jur y wi tha c om p let e s to r y of th e c rim e o n tria l”; ev id en c e t h at if ab se n t “ w ou ld cr ea te a c h ro n olo g i c a l or c on c ep tu al v oid i n the n a r r a t i v e o fthe c ha r g e d o ffe ns e ” ; a nd e v i dence th at“ i s so b l en ded o r c o nne ct ed th ati t i nc i den ta l l y i nvol ves, expl ai ns the ci rcum sta nces surr ounding, o r tends to p ro ve any el em ent ofthe charg ed offense .” U nited St at e s v. Boone, 62 8 F
. 3d 92 7, 9 33 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( ci ting ca se s)
. Thi s ev i den ce i s ac curatel y de sc r ibe d a s “c o nt ex tu al”

— it fi l l s whatwoul d o th er wi se b e a vo i d i n the12 N o. 11

- 1661 circum stan ces, ch ronology, or narrative of the d efend an t’s a l l e g ed cr im in al c on d u c t. Se ei d. T hi s i s p r e c i s e l y what th e g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s Roj o ’ s state m en t pr o vi ded th e j ury: co ntext. A ccor ding to the g overn m ent, the sta tem e n t“ e s t ab lis h e d th e on ly ob v io u s p o in tth a tR ojo w as assist ing an i nv estigation of poss ibl e coca ine traffi cki ng” a nd i t “ pr ov id ed f oundati on f orthe j ury to u n d er st an d R ojo’s su b se q u en t in te ra c tio n s w ith [V ar ga s].” Gorman does not sta nd f orthe propos i ti on that “ f oundati o n” o r “ c o nt e xtua l ” e v i de nc e i s a l wa y s i na dmi s s ib l e. See U nited Sta tes v. Fo ster, 652 F.3d 7 7 6 , 784 (7th C ir. 2011 ) (exp lai nin g th at a fte r Gorman , “we i nstr ucted d ist ric t c ou rt s t o c on sid er w h et h er su c h e v i d en c e w ou ld b e a d m iss ible eith er u n d er R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) o r as d ire c t e vid en c e o f th e c h ar ge d offe n se .”). A s w e e x p lain ed in Gorman , “ I fe vi den ce i s no t di r ec t ev i den ce o fthe c rim e it se lf, it is u su ally p ro p en sit y e vid e n c e s im p ly di sgui se d a s i ne xt r i cabl e i nt er twi ne m en t ev i den ce , a nd i s there f or e i m proper, atl eas t i fnotadm i tte d und er the c onst ra i nts o fRule 40 4( b)

. ” Gorman , 613 F. 3d at 71 8. Bu t Gorman does offer a pri m e e xam ple o fdi re ct, as op p osed to prop en sity, eviden ce. Th e d efe n d a nt there w as tr i ed and c onvi cted f orm aking perj uri ous s tat em ents to a g ra nd j ury conve ned to i nd i ct hi s co usi n on f e de r a l dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngc ha r g e s . F e de r a l l a w e nfo r c em ent o ffi ci al s had sou ght t o confi scat e a Bentl ey that th e co us i n pur ch as ed wi thi l l

- g o tt enga ins. The g o ve r nm en t c h ar ge d th e d efe n d an t w ith d ire c tin g in ve st igating offi cers to searc h a sp ot in his co n d om inium ’s p ar kin g g ar ag e t h at h e k n ew was unoccupie d, in te n tio n ally dive rt ing the o ffi cer s fro m the pla ce where the Bentl eyN o. 11

- 1661 13 ha d a ctua l l y b ee n pa r k ed. A gr an d j uror ask ed th e defen d an t, “D id you ha ve a B en tley in you r garage at L ion ’s Gat e? ” The de fen dan t r es po nde d “ N o . ” The j ur o r c o nti nued , “Ever ?” And the defe nd ant a nsw er ed, “N o, never . ” At tr i al, the go ver nm ent c al l ed w i tness es to testify that th e d efend an t orche strated the B en tley’s re m ova l fro m the gar age , r etri eve d m oneyfro m i ts t r un k, a nd then o r de r e d tha tthe v e hi c l e b e ab a nd o ne d. The cour t deni ed the defe nd ant’ s m oti on to s up press th i s ev i den ce . On ap pea l, we he l d tha t “[ b] ec au se the basi s forthe perj ury charg e was that[ th e d efendant] den i ed ‘ ha ving ’ the c ar i n h i s g ar ag e, hi s th eft o fthe car an d extrica t io n o f th e m one y fr om w ithin w ere dir ect evi dence ofhi s f al se tes tim on y.” Id. at7 19
. The evi dence w as “dir ect” bec ause i t e stabl i shed that th e defen dan t “’ ha d’ a Be nt l eyi n the g ar ag e i n the fi rs t instance
. ” Id. R oj o’s statem en t w as no t d irect ev iden ce of Vargas ’s charg ed offense. The i nd i ctm ent a l l ege d that Var gas att em pted to posse ss, with the int en t to dist ribute, m or e than 500 gr am s o fc oc ain e “ [ o] n orabo ut A ugust 7, 2008
. ” The “ possibl e co cai ne tr affi cki ng” t h at Roj o desc rib ed had to have o ccurr ed pri orto A ugust 1 , 20 08, w hen the DE A enl i ste d R oj o’ s a ssi sta nce i n the sting. A nd the gov er nm ent di d not char ge Varga s forhi s s usp ecte d i nv o lv e m en t in those prior transa ctions
. Roj o’s tes ti m ony about the a gents ’ suspi ci ons did notte nd to prove the el em en ts o f the offense f orwh i ch Varg as w as actual l y c harg ed. The ev i den c e, ther ef or e, cannot be pr oper l y c ate gor i zed a s di re ct e vi dence. But does i ts admi ss i o n r equi r e r ev er sal? In Gorman , we explained14 N o. 11

- 1661 th atwe wi l l a ffi r m the a dm i ss i o n o fc o nt ex tu al, no nd ire c t e vid en c e if it c om p or ts w ith R u le 4 04 (b ). Go r man , 61 3 F .3d at71 9; s e e a l so F o ster, 652 F.3d at 784 ( “[W ]e thi nk i t i s cl earthatthe j ud ge w oul d have a dm i tte d th i s ev i den ce unde r Rul e 40 4(b) i f he ha d an ti ci pated o ur about- f ace. ”) ; cf. U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 67 3 F
. 3d 688, 69 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( “I n thi s ca se, h owever, the evi dence of M iller’s rec en t p os se ss ion of th e s am e g u n w as d ire c tly re l evantev i dence ofthe charg ed cr i m e, not propensi ty evid en ce. Bec au se th e d istrict cou rt reach ed the corre ct r esul t, the cour t’ s u se ofthe now di sf avo re d ratio na le does n ot m atter.”). A nd alleviden tiary errors ar e s u bj ec t t o h ar m les s e rro r re vie w . U ni t e d S t at e s v. C o o per, 591 F .3 d 582, 590 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ev iden tiary e r ro rs a r e s ubj e c tt o h a r ml e s s e r r o r a na l y s i s u nd e r F e d. R
. Crim
. P. 52(a). ”). It is w ell es ta b l i s h ed th at ev id en c e m ay be p ro p er ly ad m itt ed u n d er R u le 4 04 (b ) w h en : ( 1) the evid en ce i s di re cted t oward est abl i shi ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r than the defendant’s pro p e n sit y t o c om m it th e c rim e c h ar ge d ; (2) th e e vidence show s that the o theracti s s i m i l areno ugh and cl os e i n ti m e t o be r el evantto the m att er i n i ssue, ( 3) the evi dence i s s ufficient to supp or t a j ur y fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan t co m m i tt ed th e si m i l ara ct, a nd ( 4) the pr o ba ti ve v al ue o fthe ev i den ce i s no t su bsta nt i al l y o ut wei g he d b y the danger ofunfa i r prej ud i ce. U ni ted St at e s v. Bol i ng, 648 F.3d 474 , 479 (7th C ir. 2011); U ni t e d Stat e s v. Lo ng, 86 F .3d 81 , 83 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); see alsoN o. 11

- 1661 15 Fed. R. Evi d. 404(b) ( 1) ( “Evid en c e o fa cri m e, wrong o r ot h er a ct i s no t a dm i ssibl e t o prove a perso n’s char acte r i n or der t o show .

. . the perso n acte d i n acco rdance w ith th e ch aract er. ”). Th e gov e r n m en t argu es th at R oj o’s state m e n t d id n o t a t t e m p t to establish V argas’s propensi ty to tr affi c co cai ne, but w e be l i eve thatto be a na tura l and l ogi cali nfe re nce fl owing f ro m the sta tem en t. I fc o ca i ne ha d pr ev i o us ly bee n t r affi ck ed o uto fthe m uffl ersho p, and Varg as w or ked atthe m u ffl ersho p ( w hi ch he di d), the j ury m i ght ha ve i nfe rr ed that Varga s w as one o fthe i nd i v i du a l s i nv o l v e d in the t r a ffi c k i ng . And Roj o ’ s us e o fthe wor d “ po ss ibl e” t o de sc r ibe the suspecte d drug tr affi cki ng di d not, o n i ts own , i nocu l ate th e t es tim on y. SeeU nite d State s v. P ri et o , 54 9 F
. 3d 513, 523 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( fi nd i n g e rr ori n adm i ssi on o fst ate
m ents about defe nd ants’ “ ‘ possibl e c onnecti on’ ” t o o th e r i l l e g a l d r u ga c t i v i t y, bu t ho l d i n gth e e r r o r h a r ml ess )
. Regar ding the seco nd and thi rd Rule 40 4(b ) f acto rs , ther e w as s c an t evi dence i n the re cor d to prove bya preponderance thatthe “possibl e co cai ne tr affi cki ng” w as cl ose eno ugh i n ti m e to b e re l evant, o r that Varga s had a ctual l y parti ci pated i n the past tra ffi cki ng. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Burke, 42 5 F
. 3d 400, 4 10 (7 th Ci r. 20 05) ( expla i ni ng tha t the pre pond erance s tandard i s a pp ro pri ate f or deter m i ni ng the adm i ssibi l i ty of pri or acts ev id en c e). T h e g ov er n m en t, for ex am p le, d id n otso licit tes ti m ony f ro m the i nd i vi du al w ho i ni ti al l y gave pol i ce info rm ati on about coca i ne be i ng so l d out o f the muffl e r s ho p. S o R oj o ’ s s t a t e men twa s n o ta dm issible un d er Ru le 404(b), a n d the d istri ct cou rt er re d by a dm i tting i t.16 N o. 11

- 1661 Erro rs , however, “do not m er i t r eve rs alwh en the go ver nm ent pr ove s that they a re har m l ess , thati s, thatthey did notaffect the o utc om e ofthe tr i al

. ” Unit e d S t at e s v. R atli ff -W hite, 49 3 F
. 3d 812, 82 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 07)
. The te st f o r ha r ml e s s e r r o r i s whe the r, i n the mi nd o f the ave ra ge j uror, the pros ecuti on’ s ca se w oul d have be en si gni fi cantl y l ess per suasi ve had the i m properev i dence b e e n e xc l ud e d. U nited Sta tes v. Lo ug hry, 66 0 F
. 3d 965, 97 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. “An err ori s har m l ess i fthe untai nted i ncri m i nating ev i dence i s o ver w hel m i ng. ” Id. Ou r r e v i e w o f the e v i de nc e pr e s e nt e d a t t r i a l as sure s us tha t th e di st r i ctcou rt’s a dm i ss i o n o fRoj o ’ s st at ement was ha r m l es s er r o r . To c o nv i ctVa r g as , th e g o ve r nm en t had to prove thathe “ acte d w i th t h e intent to posse ss [ a n i l l e g a l s ub s t a nc e ] , ” a nd tha th e “ e ng a g e d in c onduct w hi ch co nsti tutes a su b sta nti alst ep to w ar d com m i ssi on ofthe offense . ” U nite d State s v. Stall w orth , 65 6 F
. 3d 721, 72 8- 29 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. The j ur y heard a s ta g g er i ng am ount o f e vid ence on e ach el em ent. DE A ag ents ar re ste d Varga s in the W al gr eens parking l ot d u ringa pla nned m eet i ng with t he ag ency’ s co nfi denti also urce, Roj o. Varg as ar ri ved car ry i ng a shoe box fil l ed w i th $45, 000 in c ash. The go ver nm ent pl aye d rec or dings o f R ojo an d V ar ga s p lan n in g t h e d ru g d ea l , p re se n te d te st imo n y o fR oj o and D E A a g e n t s t o d e c i p h e r th e t wo m en ’s c od ed co n ve rs at ion s, an d a d d u c ed p ow er fu l ev id en ce of Roj o’s i nt en t, includ ing h is ow n w ord s. R oj o’s tes t i mon y tha th e wa s i ns t r uc t e d t o g e tc l o s e t o V a rg as as p art of a n inv estigation into “p ossible cocaine traffi ck i ng ” adde d l i tt l e, i fa ny th ing, to the wei g hto fthe evi dence ag ai nst Var gas . H ad the s tat em ent b eenN o. 11

- 1661 17 p ro p er ly ex c lu d ed , th e g ov er n m en t’s ca se ce rt ain ly w ou ld n oth av e b ee n “s ign ifica n tly les s p er su as i v e.” Acco r di ng l y, w e ho l d tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s er r o ne o us adm i ssi on o fRoj o’ s s tat em ent was har m l ess .
B. T h e D i stri ctCo urtProperly Exclu d ed V argas’s P ostAr r e s tSt a t e me ntt ha tHe Was “ B uy i nga T ruc k” Var g as ne xta r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc ou rtv i o l at ed th e r ul e o fc o m pl et en es s byno t admi tt i ngthe p ortio n o fthe ar r es t vi deo dur i ngw hich he s ta te d tha t he was “ buy i ng a t ruck. ” Var gas m ain tai ns thatthe sta tem ent was “r el evant to the speci fi c el em ents ofthe gov er nm ent’ s pro of and e xplanat or y of port i ons al re ady adm i tte d into ev id en c e.” H e in sis ts th at th e s ta te m en t w as als o ad m iss ible und er the exci ted- utter ance orst ate
- of

- m i nd hear say ex ce pti o ns . The g o ve r nm en t r es po nds tha t ne i th erthe r ul e o fc o m pl et en es s no r the he ar sa y e xc ept i o ns apply because Varg as’ s s tat em ent rev eal ed a f act that he r e me mb e r e d r a th e r th a n h i s p r e s e n ts t a t e o fmin d. W e a gr ee w i th the go ver nm ent. U nd erthe doctr i ne o fco m ple tenes s, co difi ed at Feder al Rule ofEvi dence 106 , “a c om ple te sta tem ent i s r equi re d to be rea d or h ea rd w h en it is n ec es sa ry t o (1 ) ex p lain th e a d m itt ed p or tio n, (2) p lac e t h e a d m itt ed p or tio n in con tex t, (3) avoid m isl ead ing the trier of fact, or ( 4) ins ure a f ai r and i m parti alundersta nd i ng. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lewis , 6 41 F
. 3d 77 3, 785 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( ci ta ti o n a nd i nt e r n a lqu o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. T h e d o c t r i n e , h o wever, does n ot requ ire ad m issi on of statem en ts th a t are “nei therexpl anatoryo fnorr el evantto the adm i tte d18 N o. 11

- 1661 passag es. ” Id. ( ci tat i on a nd i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks o m itted)

. M o r eo ve r, a pa r tyc anno t us e th e do ct r i ne ofco m ple tenes s t o ci rcum vent Rule 803’ s e xcl usi on o f h ea rs ay te st im on y. Id. ( rej ecting d efendant’s at tem pt to c ro ss -ex am in e o ffice rs ab ou t t h e o m itt ed p or tio n s o f h is p os t-a rre st s ta te m en t). T h is p re se n ts a se riou s o b st ac le f orVarg as’ s cl ai m . H e t ri es to ove rcom e th i s hurdl e by chara cter i zi ng hi s s tat em ent a s a n exci ted utte ra nce o r a s t a t e men tof hi s the n- e xi s t i ngs t a t e o fmi nd

. R u le 8 03 (2) p ro vid es a n e x c ep tio n to th e h ea rs ay ru le per m i tt i ngthe a dm i ss i o n o fe xc i te d ut te r an ce s, a nd R u le 8 03 (3) o ffer s t h e s a m e fo r a s ta te m en t o f an ind ividu al’s th en -existing s t a t e of m ind

. Fed

. R. Evid

. 803(2), (3); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 4 53 F. 3d 838, 84 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( exci ted utte ra nce); U nite d S t at e s v. Har t man n , 9 58 F. 2d 774, 78 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( sta te of m i nd )
. These excepti ons, however, ar e o fno hel p here

. F o r a s t a t e men tt o b e a dmi s s ib l e und e r the e xc i t e dutter ance e xcepti on, the m ova nt m ust dem onst ra te that “( 1) a sta rt l i ng ev ent o ccu rred ; ( 2) the decl ar ant m ake s th e st at ementwhi l e underthe s tr es s o fe xc i te m en t cau sed by the startli ng even t; an d ( 3) th e d eclaran t’s sta tem ent r el ate s t o the s tar tl i ng ev ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Joy, 19 2 F
. 3d 76 1, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 )
. As th e par ty seeking t o a dmi tthe s t a t e men t, V a r g a s h a d the b ur de n o fe s t ablish in g e ac h ele m en t. Id. T he di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed th athe f ai l ed to s ho w tha t th e st at ement r el at ed to the st ar tl i nge ve nt

— th e ar r es t. Ins te ad, the c o ur t f o und th atthe s ta te m en t r el at ed to Va r g as ’ s ar r i vala t th e W al gr eens, a “p rio r” ev ent. On app eal, Varg as re peats hi s ar g um en t th atthe a r r es t sh o ul d qua l i fy as a s ta r tl i ngN o. 11

- 1661 19

ev en t, b uthe f ai l s to i den ti fy g r o unds f o r reve r singthe di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng tha t the s t a t e men t r e l a ted to a pri orev ent. E ven a ssum i ng tha t the ar re st quali fi es as a “ sta rt l i ng ev ent, ” we agr ee w i th t h e di str i ct c ourtthat V ar ga s’s st at em en t d id n otrela te to th e a rre s t . Th e e vid e n c e s u p p o r t s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t’ s c o n c l u s i o n, s o we affir m its ru lin g o n t h is iss u e. See U nited Sta tes v. C o nley, 291 F. 3d 464, 47 2 ( 7th Ci r. 200 2) (“B ecause o fthe speci al d eferenc e w e g ive to the trialj ud ge’s eviden tiary r ul i ng s, we wi l l no t r ev er se unl es s th e re co r d c o nt ains n o e vid en c e o n w h ich [th e t ria l j u d ge ] rat ion ally co u ld ha ve bas ed [ his] dec isi on.”). T h e d efe n d an t’s as se rt ion th a t h is s ta te m en t fa lls w ith in th e s ta te -of-m in d ex c ep tio n als o fa i l s . N oton ly is our re vi ew o fthis i ssue f orpl ai n er ro r because Varg as ra ise d it f o r th e firs t t im e o n ap p ea l, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 4 7 9 F
. 3 d 4 8 5 , 4 9 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , b u th i s a r g um en t i s co ntrad ic te d b y the t ex t o fthe e xc ept i o n a nd o ur se tt led ca se law co n st ru in g it. T h e e x c ep tio n sim p ly does not apply to “a sta tem ent o fm em ory orbel i efto pr o v e the f a c tr e memb e r e d o r b e l i e v e d.

. . . ” Fed. R. Ev i d. 803 (3); see also U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 95 9 F
. 2d 1371 , 1375 -76 (7th C ir. 1 9 9 2). Varga s stated that he “w as he re buyi ng a tr uck. ” As th e ve rb te nse in that phrase i nd i c ate s, Varg as m ade the sta tem ent t o prove a f act re m em ber ed. The st ate o fm i nd exce pti on d oes notapply

. Be c a us e V a r g a s ’ s s t a t e men tc o ul d n o th a v e been a dm itted un d er either th e ex cited -utte ran ce or th e st ate-ofm ind exc e p tion to the hears ay rules, the d istri ct cou rt did noter r by re j ecting Var gas ’ s r equest that hi s o ut o f20 N o. 11

- 1661

c o u r ts t a t e me n tb e a d mi t t e d u n d e r th e d o c t r i n e o fc o mple tenes s.
C. Th e J uryCharg e Ad equ at el y A ccounted f or V arg as ’s D efe n s e T h eo ry Varga s’ s fi nal co ntenti on i s that th e d istri ct c ourter re d by no t i ns truct i ngthe j ur y o n h i s “mer e pr es en ce ” th eor y of the case

. H e clai m s tha t the i ns tru ction w as ne cess ary to p re ve n t t h e jur y f r om be in g m isle d by R ojo’s te st im ony that th e DE A had senthi m to the m uffl ersho p as part ofan invest i gat i on into p os sibl e co cai ne tr affi cki ng, a s we l l a s t o p r e v e ntthe j ur y fr o m fi nd i ngV a r gas g ui l t y s i mpl y b e c a us e h e wa s a tthe s c e ne o fa dr ugdeal b e t we e n R oj o a n d “ P e p e . ” T h e g o v e r n me n tr e s p o nd s th ata “ m er e pr es en ce” i ns truct i o n was no t co ns i st en t wi ththe e vi den ce b ec au se Var g as was no t j us t “s ta ndi ng ar ou n d w h ile o t h er s e n ga ge d in c rim in al a c tiv ity .” It al so str ess es that Varga s’ s theor y o fthe case was al re ady parto fthe charg e be cause the o ffense re quir es a fi ndi ngb ey o nd r ea so nable do ubttha t th e defen dan t “in tend ed to poss ess ” co cai ne and “know i ngl y t oo k a su bs ta nt i als te p” to war d po ss es si o n. W he re, as here, th e d efend an t obj ects to a district cou rt’s r efus alt o g i ve a the o r y o fthe de fen se i ns truct i o n, o ur re vi ew i s deno vo . U nited Sta t e s v . B a ker, 43 8 F
. 3d 749, 758 (7th Ci r . 2 0 06). “To b e ent itl ed to a particu lar th eory o fthe c as e i ns truct i o n, the de fen dan t m us t s how the f o l l o wi ng : 1 ) the i ns truct i o n i s a c o r r ec t st at emento fthe l aw , 2) the evi dence i n the case supports the theo ryo f defe nse, 3) thattheo ryi s no t a l re ady parto fthe c h ar ge,N o. 11

- 1661 21 and 4) a f ai l ure to provi de the i ns tr u c ti on would deny a f ai r tr i al

. ” U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 46 4 F
. 3d 699, 70 7 ( 7th C ir. 2006). Ou r pattern j ury i nstr ucti on f orthe “m er e pr es ence” defen se s ta te s th at“ a defen dan t’ s pr es en ce a t th e sc en e o fa c r i me a n d kn o wl e d g e th a ta c r i me i s b e i n gc o mm itted i s not alone suffi cient to establish th e d efend an t’s gui l t. ” P at tern Cri m i nal Fe deralJ ury I nstr ucti ons f or th e S ev en thCir cui t 5. 11 ( 19 98 )
. Va r g as s o ug htthi s i nst r uct i o n in the di st r i ctc o ur t, a r g ui ng thathe was a t th e W algreens to buy a t ruck, notco cai ne. I t i s fi rm l y e stabl i shed that a defendant r equesting t hi s instr ucti on “ m ust i denti fy e vid ence consi ste nt with a theor y o fm er e pr esence. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gl over, 4 79 F. 3d 511, 51 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. S uche vi den ce wou ld ty pi ca l l y s uppo r t th e po ss ibi l i tytha t th e defen dan t was “ st an di nga r o und w hi l e o ther s e ngage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty. ” Id. Va r g a s ’ s a pp e a l o f thi s i s s ue i s c o nt r o l l ed by Ja m es . In that case , w e hel d that a dist ri ct cour t’ s re fu sa l to g i ve a m ere pr es en ce i ns truct i o n do es no t den y the de fen dan t a f ai r t r i alif th e j ur y c o ul d no t co nv i cthi m wi th o ut fi nd i ng tha t the defendant had the r equi si te “kno w l edge” to c o m p l e t e t h e c rim e. Ja m es , 46 4 F
. 3d at7 07

- 08
. The defen dan t th er e, who ha d been ch ar g ed wi thpo ss es sing coca i ne, r equeste d a m er e pr ese nce i nstr ucti on be cause he l i ve d wi tha c o ca i ne de al er, b utc l ai m ed to ha ve pe r so na l l y s o l d o n l y ma r ij u a n a . Affi r mi ng th e c o n v i c t i o n, we ex pla i ned that the “ m er e pr ese nce” instr ucti on i s “ desi gned to i nfo rm the j ury that gui l t s houl d not fol l ow fro m . . . p re se n c e a t t h e s c en e o f a c rim e. R at h er , gu ilt22 N o. 11

- 1661

m ay be foun d only w he n th e d efend an t know ingly parti ci pated i n the cri m i nal act ivity. ” Id. ( citation om itted ). Because the poss ess i on o ffense J am es w as charg ed w i th r e q u i r e d th e j u r y t o fi n d th a tthe def en d a n ta c t e d “ k n o wi ngl y, ” the i nstr ucti ons “adequatel y a pp ri sed the j ury” o f th e elem en ts an d t h e de fend an t’s theory of the ca se. So th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r b y r e fu s i n g t o g i ve t he m er e p re se n c e in st ru c tio n . Id. Var g as w as i ndi ct ed f o r at te m ptingto pos se ss , wi ththe i nt en t to di st r ibut e, 5 00 g r ams o r m o r e o fc o ca i ne . The ev id en c e in th e re c o rd d oe s n otsu p p or t V ar ga s’s cla im th athe was mer ely pr es en t ata c r i m e scene. And the j u r y c h a r g e r e q u i r e d th e g o v e r n me n tt o p r o v e b ey o nd a r eas onabl e doubt that t he defendant “i ntended” to posse ss and tra nsferwh at he be l i eve d to be a co n trol l ed substa nce, and that he “know i ngl y t oo k a subst anti al st ep to war d” th ata i m . Cr i ti ca l l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t i nstru cted th e ju ry that a “sub stan tial step ” requ ires m ore than “m er e pl anni ng o r prepar ati on. ” S o forthe j ury to convi ct Var gas , i t had to fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt th at he know ingly com m itted som e act b e y o nd m ere pl anni ng ; i t co ul d no t co nv i cthi m for si m pl y b eing p re se n t a t t h e s c en e o f so m eo n e e lse ’s c rim e. T h is c ou rt pres um es th at th e j ury foll ow ed the d istri ct cou rt’s in st ru c tio n s, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Zahurs ky, 58 0 F. 3d 515, 525-26 (7t h C ir. 2009), an d Varga s has not sh ow n oth erw ise. W e the refore find no er ror in th e d istri ct cou rt’s denia l of Varga s’ s re quest f or a “m er e prese nce” instr ucti o n.N o. 11

- 1661 23 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe abov e- sta ted r eas ons, the defe nd ant’ s co nvi cti on i s A FFI RMED .

8- 10- 12