2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-14-2009 

# U S A v . L a ne P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3819

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L a ne " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 818. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/818NOT PRECEDENTIAL
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 07-3819

_________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v . STEVEN LANE, Appellant.

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia No. 04-c r-00697- 2 (District Judge: The Honora ble Will iam H. Yohn)

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

J une 2, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, HA RDI MAN, and G REENBE RG Circuit Judges

(F iled August 14, 2009)2 OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T
McKe e, Circuit J udg e, Steven L ane a

ppeals his conviction for

conspirac y

to interfer e with interstate c ommerce by robber y under 18 U .S.C. § 1951(a). F or the re asons that follow, we will affirm. I
. Inasmuch a s we a

re writing pr imarily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, we
ne e d n ot r e c ite the fa c tua l or pr oc e dura l hi sto ry . L ane argue s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in permitting a

g overnme nt witness to testify about L ane’ s involvement in a prior robbe ry for whic h he had be en neither

charg ed nor c onvicted. He contends that this testimony was irr eleva

nt and that its probative value w as outweighed by its prejudicial ef

fec t, and that he is there fore entitled to a new tr ial under F ed. R. Evid. 404(b). We disagree . We reviewthe district court’s de cision to admit evidence for a buse of discr etion. United States v. Butch , 256 F.3d 171, 175 ( 3d Cir. 2001). Rule 404(b) state s that while “[e]vidence of other c rimes, wrong s, or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c hara cter of a pe rson in order

to show confor mity there with,” such e vidence may be used f or other pur

poses. Indeed, suc h evidenc e shall be admitted “if r eleva nt for any other purpose than to show a mer e prope nsity or dispositi on on the par

t of the def

endant to commit the cr ime.” United States v. Long , 574 F.2d 761, 766 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. de nied, 439 U.S. 985 (1978). In o rd e r t o b e a dmi ssi ble un de r R ule 40 4(b) , e vid e nc e mus t me e t f our r e qu ir e me nts : ( 1) it must be offe red f

or a pr oper pur

pose; (2) it must be re levant; (3) its probative value must not be
su bs tanti a lly

outw e ighe d b y

any un fa ir pr e jud ic ia l im

pa c t; a nd (4 ) t he c ourt mus t pr op e rl y3

instruct the jury

about the prope r use a

nd rele vance of the e vidence
. See H uddleston v. United States , 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988). See also United States v . Givan , 320 F.3d 452, 460 ( 3d Cir. 2003). Duringargument on the motion to int roduce this evidence the g overnme nt expl ained that the testimony

about the prior r obbery

was ne cessa

ry to establish the ong oing r elationship of L ane with his co-def

endant, the g overnme nt’s witness. The testimony explained why

L ane and the codefe ndant trusted ea ch other and we re a

ble to acc omplish t he robbe ry in question without signific ant planning . The e vidence was ther efor e re levant to establishingprepa ration and pla

n which ar e appr opriate use s of evidenc e of a defe ndant’s prior “ bad ac ts” under Rule 404(b). Mo re ov e r, thi s te sti mony wa s th e on ly

wa y the g ov e rnme nt c ou ld e sta bli shthe re latio ns hip betwee n L ane a

nd the co- defe ndant, and that wa s cer tainly rele vant to the g overnme nt’s case
. Acc ording ly , the district court c orre ctly found that a “ g enuine ne ed” f or the e vidence outweighed any prejudicia l effe ct. (App. 61- 62). We h ave he ld i n nume ro us c a se s th at e vid e nc e of pr ior c ri min a l a c tiv ity

is a dmi ssi ble under Rule 404(b) to show the re lationship between a witness and a de fenda

nt. See, e .g., United States v. Butch , 2 56 F .3 d 1 71 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ) ( a llo wi ngwi tne ss i n p ha rm a c e uti c a l th e ft

c a se to te sti fy a s to de fe nd ant’ s p ri or

pa rt ic ipatio n in

ide nti c a l th e ft ); see also United States v . Simmons , 679 F.2d 1042, 1050 ( 3d Cir. 1982), cert. de nied, 462 U.S. 1134 (1983) (holdingthat evidenc e may be introduce d “to provide ne cessa ry background information, to show an ong oing relationship between [the defe ndant and a co-c onspirator], and to help the jury understand the coconspirator ’s role in the sc heme” ). In addition, the district court g ave a n appropriate limiting instruction to the jury that4

minimi zed the likelihood that the evidence would be conside red f or an imprope r purpose . See Un ite d S tates v . S riy uth , 9 8 F .3 d 7 39 , 7 48 (3 d Ci r. 19 96 ). Our r e vie w i s f or pla in e rr or

be c a us e L ane did not objec t to this testimony at trial. United States v. Antico , 275 F.3d 245, 265 ( 3d Cir. 2001), cert. de nied, 537 U.S. 821 (2002). Given the district court’s limiting instruction, and the rele vance of the e vidence under Rule 404(b), we find no err or at a ll in admitt ing this evide nce, le t
a lon e any “ pla in e rr or .” Th e ins tr

uc tio n w a s g ive n b oth

at th e tim e of

thete sti mony , a

nd a g a in befor e the jury

deliberated. Ther e is nothing in the r ecor d to sugg est that the jury did not understand the instructions or wer e inca pable of followingthem. Although L ane c ites sever al ca ses to support his argument that the instructions were insufficient to over come the pr ejudicial ef fec t of the testimony , all of the c ases he cites involve sit ua tio ns wh e re the re wa s e ith e r n o p ro pe r p ur po se fo r t he e vid e nc e , o r t

he c ourt sim ply fa ile d to g ive any limit ing instruc tion at all. Here , “we believe this is a ca se whe re the jury could be expected to compar

tmentalize the evidence and conside r it for its proper purposes.” Sr iy uth , 98 F.3d at 748. II. For all of the a

bove re asons, we w ill affirm the judgment of convic tion.