### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41008

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. J OH N M ATTH EW COC KR ELL, D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore K IN G , G A R Z Aan d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: A p p ell a n t Joh n M a tthe w C ock rellap p ea l s h i s con victi on for con sp i ra cyto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t t o d is tr i b u t e h e r o in re s u ltin gin s e r io u s b o d ilyinju r y , in
v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6
. C o c k r e ll a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in
a d m i t t i n gc e r t a i n e v i d e n c e . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM
. I I n 2006, t he Pl ano Pol i c e D epar t m entnot i fi ed a gent s f r om t he Feder al B u r e a u o f In v e s tig a tio n H ig h D r u gT r a ffic k i n gA r e a (“F B I” ) o f s e v e r a l C o llin Count y he r o i n - r e l at e d o ve r do s e s , s o m e o f w hi c h wer e fat al
. La w e nf o r c e m e nt i de nt i f i e d Co c kr e l la s a di s t r ibut o ri n t he P l an o a rea. Bas e d o n t he e ns ui ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41008

2 i nve s t i ga t i o n, Coc kr e l lw as a r r e s t ed an d i ndi c t e d f o rhi s pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n a c o ns pi r ac y t o di s t r ibut e he r o i n. A tt ri al , several co- conspir ator s t est i f i ed t h at t h ey pu rchased d rugs f rom C o c k r e ll fr o m 2 0 0 5 t h r o u g h e a r ly2 0 0 7
. O n e w itn e s s t e s tifie dth a t s h e in itia lly pur c has e d m e t ham phe t am i ne f r o m Coc kr e l l , b uts w i t c he d t o he r o i n, pur c has i ng a s o fte n a s tw o to th r e e tim e s p e rw e e k
. W itn e s s e s t e s tifie dt h a t t h e ys a w h e r o in packag e d i ns i de o f

b al l o o ns i n Coc kr e l l ’ s a pa r t m e nta nd c ara nd t hathe di st ribu t ed those bal l oon s t o cust om ers an d other deal ers. M u l t i pl e w i t n esses sai d they p ool ed m on ey w i t h C ockrel lt o pu rchase l arger qu an t i t i es of heroi n f

or per so naluse and di st r ibut i on. Tes t i m ony al so l i nked C oc kre l l t o t he non- fat al overdoses of

W i l l i am B aca an d C h ri st oph er S chu bert
. B ot h B aca an d S chu bert t est i f i ed that t h ey overdosed on h eroi n sup pl i ed by C ockrel l an d t h ey requ i red
e m e r ge nc y m e di c altrea t m e nt
. Te s t i m o ny o f t r e at i ng pa r am e di c s a nd
am bul ance r ec or ds c or r obo r at ed Baca a nd Schuber t ’ s t es t i m ony. T h e governm en tal so s u cces sf u l l y i n t rodu ced evi den ce of C ockrel l ’ s pri or d ru g crim e con vic tio n . H e w a s i n d i cted i n 19 9 9 f or co n sp i ra cyto po sse ss w i th t he i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e h e r o i n, b utul t i m at e l y pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o us i ng a t e l e pho ne t o faci l i t ate a heroi n t raf f i cki n gc rim e. C ockrel lw as sentenced to 41 m on t h s’ i m pri sonm en t
. Th e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered a dm i ssibi l i t y pri or t o t h e st artof t ri al
. C ockrel largu ed that t h e pri or c on vi ct i on w as i n ad m i ssibl e u n der F ED . R. E VID . 404 (b) becau se i tw as p rio r “bad a ct” evi den ce. Th e governm en targu ed t h at t h e pri or convic t i on show ed i n t en t t o di st ribu t e dru gs or absen ce of m i st ak e. C oc kre l lr es ponded t hatbe c ause the pri orc onvi c t i on and t he c urr entc harge
w e r e v e r y s i m i l ar , t he y w e r e hi ghly pr ej udi c i al
. The di s t r i c t c o ur t ad m i t t e d t he
e vi de nc e , f

i ndi ng t hatCoc kr e l l ’ s no t
- guil t y pl e a put hi s i nt e nta ti s s ue a nd t he
e xt r aneo us o f

fe ns e w as t e m po r al l y pr o xi m at e , s i m i l art o t he o f fe ns e c har ge d, andr e l e va ntt o s ho w Coc kr e l l ’ s i nt e nto rt hathe ha d no ta c c i de nt al l y be e n s w e pt
u p i n a he r o i n di s t r ibut i o n s c he m e . The di s t r i c t c o ur t al s o no t e d t hatbecau seN o. 08- 41008

3 m uch o f

t he o t herev i denc e a boutC ock rell ’ s di st r ibut i on ac t ivi t i es w oul d be pr o vi de d b y i ndi c t e d a nd u ni ndi c t e d c o - c o ns pi r at o r s , t her e w as a ne e d f o rt he go ve r nm e ntt o o f

fe ro t he re vi de nc e f r o m w hi c h i nt e ntc o ul d b e i nfe r r e d. Im m edi atel y f

ol l ow i n g t h e pri or c o n vi ct i on t est i m on y, t h e di st ri ctcourt i ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y o n t he l i m i t e d e xt e ntt o w hi c h t he y c o ul d c o ns i de rt he
ev i d en ce. In releva n t pa rt, the j u ryw a s i n stru cted tha t: The pl e a ag r e e m e nta nd j udg m e nt

)) a r e n o t a d m is s ib le a n ds h o u ld n otbe consi dered b y you f or t h e pu rp ose of

provi n g t h at M r. C ockrel lcom m i t t ed w h at he’ s acc u sed of an d w h at he’ s on t ri alf or her e. . . . I f

yo u f i nd fr om ot herev i denc e t hathe c om m i t t ed t hat o f fe ns e , t he n y o u c an c o ns i de rt he pr e vi o us c o nvi c t i o n f o rt he pur po s e of

det e r m i ni ng w he t he ro rno the kno w i ngly c o ns pi r e d a nd w h eth er orn ot h e p oss ess ed an y h ero i n w i th th e inten t t o d i strib u te i t. N e a rth e e n do f t h e t r ia l, t h e c o u r td e c id e dt h a tt e s t im o n ya b o u tC o c k r e ll ’s pri orar r es tand t he di sc ove r y o f 1. 4 gr am s of m et ham phet am i ne i n hi s c arw as ad m i s s ibl e . The a r r e s to c c ur r e d i n Fe br uar y 20 07
. W hi l e he w as a tt he F arm er’ s B ran ch, T exas, P ol i ce D epa rt m en t , p ol i ce of f i cers observed C ockrel lon a tel eph on e cal l t h at ap pea red t o be a heroi n t ran sact i on . O n e of f i cer observed Coc kr e l ls pe ak i ng o n t he pho ne a nd, w hi l e o n s pe ak e r - pho ne , hear d t he custom er ask i f

C ockrel l“ w ou l d be ab l e t o pi ck u p a q u a rte r of brow n , ” a t erm t he o f f i c erknew t o r ef

ert o he r oi n. A ft er d et er m i ni ng t hatC oc kre l lhad
o u ts ta n d in gw a r r a n ts , th e ya r r e s te dh im
. T h e o ffic e r s fo u n da s y r in g e in C o c k r e l l ’ s p o c k e t a n d a s e a r c h o f h i s v e h i c l e t u r n e d u p a p p r o x i ma t e l y1
. 4 9 g r a ms of m et h am ph et am in e. B ot h of f i cers t est i f

i ed that t h i s am ou n tof
m et h am ph et am i n e w as consi st en tw i t h ei t h er di st ribu t i on or persona luse. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta dm i t t e d t he e vi de nc e , c i t i ng t w o g r o u n ds. F i r s t , t he d is t r ic tc o u r tn o t e dit s b e li e f t h a tC o c k r e ll ’s c o u r s e o f c o n d u c ta tF a r m e r ’s B ran ch, i n cl u di n g h i s ph on e cal l s f or w h at a p p e ared to be a h eroi n deal, w ere i n t ri n si c t o t h e overal lconspi racy t h at C ockrel lw as ch arged w i t h
. Th e di st ri ctN o. 08- 41008

4 c o ur tf ur t he rr ul e d t hate ve n i f no t i nt r i ns i c , t he e vi de nc e o f m e t ham phe t am i ne possessi on i n a di st ribu t able qu an t i t y w as rel evan ta n d ad m i ssibl e un der F ED . R. E VID . 40 4(b) t o s ho w Coc kr e l l ’ s i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e heroi n u nde rt he
c o ns pi r ac y c har ge . The di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d Co c kr e l l ’ s argu m e nt s t hatt he pr ej udi c e o ut w e i ghe d t he pr o ba t ive v al ue . Coc kr e l lr e que s t e d a j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n, and i m m edi at el y f

ol l ow i ng t he o f

f i c er s’t es t i m ony, t he di st ri ct co u r tgave an i ns t r uc t i o n s i m i l art o t he o ne r e ga r di ng t he he r o i n c o nvi c t i o n. T h e j u ryf

ou n dC ock rellgu i l ty. T h e d i stri ct cou rt s e n te n ced C ock rellto i m pri sonm en tf

or a t erm of

380 m on t h s t o be f

ol l ow ed byf

ive years of

sup ervi sed
r e le a s e . T h e c o u r t im p o s e d a $ 1 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t, b u t n o fi n e . C o c k r e ll t i m e l y ap pe al e d hi s c o nvi c t i o n. II Coc kr e l la r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n a dm i t t i ng e vi de nc e o f t he p r i o rh e r o i n c o nv i c t i o n a n dt h e me t h a mp h e t a mi n e a r r e s t
. T h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws th e a d m i s s i o n o f

e v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 (b ) fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

alt ers , 3 5 1 F .3 d1 5 9 , 1 6 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A lth o u g h th is re v ie w is “n e c e s s a r ily h e ig h te n e d ” in c r im in a l ca s e s , Un i t ed S t ate s v. A n d ers on , 933 F. 2d 12 61 , 1 26 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 1) , abus e of di s c r e t i o n i s onl y r e ve r s ibl e i f a de fe nda nt
c a n d e m o n s tr a te p r eju d ic e , Uni t e d St at e s v . Cole m an , 78 F
. 3d 154 , 156 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). R u l e 4 0 4 (b) p rov i d es th a t: E vi denc e o f

ot herc r i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadm i ss ibl e t o pr ove th e ch a ra cter of a p erso n i n o r d e r to sh ow action i n con form i ty t h erew i t h
. I t m ay, h ow ever, be ad m i ssibl e f or ot h er purp oses, such as pr oof

o f m o t ive , o ppo r t uni t y, i nt e nt , pr e pa r at i o n, pl an, k n o w le d g e , id e n tit y , o ra b s e n c e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t . .
. . U n der Uni t e d St at e s v . Be e c hum , 5 8 2 F .2 d8 9 8 , 9 1 1 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ), th is cir c u it
a p p lie s a tw o -p r o n g e da n a ly s is fo rth e a d m is s ib ilityo f e v id e n c e u n d e rR u le 40 4(b)

. Fi r s t , t he e vi de nc e o f “ o t he rc r i m e s , w r o ngs , o ra c t s ” m us tb e r e l e va ntN o. 08- 41008

5 to a n is s u e o th e rth a n th e d e fe n d a n t’s ch a r a c te r . I d. T h e st an da rd of

rel evan cy u n d e rR u le 4 0 1 a p p lie s t o t h e f ir s t p r o n go f th e a n a ly s is
. Un i t ed Stat es v. Perc el , 5 5 3 F .3 d9 0 3 , 9 1 1

– 1 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e re le v a n c e o f e x tr in s ic a c t e v id e n c e “is
a f u n cti on of i ts si m i l a ri ty to th e offen se ch a rg ed
. ” Bee c hum , 582 F. 3d at911. S econd , t h e evi den ce m u stpossess probative value t h at i s not
s u b s ta n tia llyo u tw e ig h e db yits u n d u e p r ej u d i c e . Perc el , 55 3 F
. 3 dat 91 2
. In
w ei gh i n g t h e p ro b a t ive value an d u n fai r prej u di ce, t h i s c ou rtm u stm ak e a “c o m m o n s e n s e a s s e s s m e n t o f a ll th e cir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in gth e e x tr in s ic offen se.” Bee c hum , 58 2 F
. 3 dat 91 4
. P rob a tive va l u e “ m u st b e dete rm i n ed w i th
r egar d t o t he e xt entt o w hi c h t he def endant ’ s unl aw f

uli nt enti s es t abl i she d by oth er ev i d en ce, sti p u l a ti on , or i n feren ce.” I d. O t h er fact ors t o be co n sid e red i nc l ude “ t he o ve r al ls i m i l ar i t y of the ext r i ns i c a nd c har ge d o f fe ns e s , a nd t he
am o unto f

t i m e t hat s e pa r at e s t he e xt r i ns i c and c har ge d o f fe ns e s ” as w e l la s a ny lim itin gin s tr u c tio n s . Un ite dS ta te s v . R ic h a r d s , 204 F
. 3d 1 77, 1 99– 201 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (cita tion om itted ). W h ere, as here, a defen da n tenters a pl ea of not gu il ty in a conspi racy case, t h e f

i rstprongof

t h e B e e c h u m te s t is s a tis fie d
. Un i t ed Stat es v. B roussard , 80 F. 3d1 02 5, 1 04 0 ( 5t h C i r. 1 99 6)

. “ The m e r e e nt r y o f a no tg ui l t y pl e a i n a con sp i ra cycas e ra i ses th e i ssu e of i n ten t su ff

i ci en tl y to justif

y th e a d m i ssibil i ty of extrins i c off

en se e vid en ce.” I

d. ; Un itedS ta tes v. Pa rz ia le , 947 F. 2d 123, 129 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), cer t
. den i ed , 5 03 U
. S. 9 46 ( 19 92 )

. I n o t he rw ords, w he r e t he pri orof fens e i nvolved t he s am e i nt entr equi r ed t o pr ove t he c harge d of fen s e , t hat pr i o ro f fe ns e i s r e l e va nta nd we ar e r e qui r e d o n l y t o c o ns i de rw he t he rt he requ i rem en t s of

R u l e 4 0 3 are m etun der B eec h u m ’ s s e c o n dp r o n g . B roussard , 80 F. 3d at1040.N o. 08- 41008

As noted ab ove, b ec au seth e inte nt isth e sa me , wenee d nota ddre ss Beechum’s firs t 1 prong . See Bro ussard, 80F .3d at 1 040 . “Where the issue .
. . i st he defen dant’s intentto commit the offen se charged, the relevancy of the extrin sic offense derive s from the defen dant’s in dulginghim self

inth e sa mestateof min d inperpetr ationof [b othoff en se s]
. . . . [B]ecau se the defen danthad unlawful inte nt in theextrin sic offense, it is less likelyth at he had lawful intent in the present offense.” Beechum , 58 2 F .2d at 9 11. Even were there some question as to the relevance of the evidence to show intent , C ockrell h as argu ably waived it b ecau se his brief appe ars to raise only the secon d pro ngunder Beechum
. 6 A Th e e vi denc e o f

t he pr i orof

fens e i ncl uded d oc um ent s and t es t i m ony t hat
s ho w e d t hatCo c k r e llwa s p r e v i o u s l y i ndi c t e d f o rc o ns pi r ac y t o po s s e s w i t h i nt e nt to d is tr ib u t e h e r o in , su b s ta n tia llyth e s a m e cr im e ch a r g e dh e r e , e x c e p t t h a t it di d n oti n cl u de the bod i l y h arm el em en t
. E vi den ce w as a lso i n t rodu ced of C o c k r e ll’ s p le a d e a l fo ru s e o f a te le p h o n e to co n d u c t n a r c o tic s tr a n s a c tio n s . T h is
e vi de nc e w as r e l e va nt t o s ho w i nt e nt be c aus e b o t h t he e xt r i ns i c o f fe ns e a nd t he cha rged of

fen se i n vol ved an i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. Se eBe e c hum , 582 F. 2d at911. 1 T h e di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d t he pri o rc o nvic t i o n si m i l ar becau se i ti n vol ved use o f a t e l e pho ne t o fac i l i t at e di s t r ibut i o n, a nd t he c har ge d o f fe ns e r e qui r e d t he govern m en tt o prove i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. C ockrel lcontends tha t a d m iss i on of h is p r io rd r u gco n v ic tio n w a s “fo rth e s a m e o ffe n s e fo rw h ic h [h e ] w a s o n tr ia l”
an d theref

ore t h e prej u di ci alef fectw as great. W h i l e C ockrel lcor rect l y n ot es t hat“ t he m o r e c l o s e l y t he e xt r i ns i c o f fe ns e r e s e m bl es t he c har ge d o f fe ns e , t he gr ea ter th e p reju d i ce to th e d efen d a n t, ” id
. at 915 n
. 20, i tsi m pl y does n otf ol l ow th a t s u c h s im ila r ityre q u ir e s e x c lu s io n o f th e e v id e n c e . In d e e d , a s w e s ta te d in Bee c hum , “th e ju d g e m u st co n sid e r th e d a n g e r o f u n d u e prej u di ce” an d the “ t est i s w h et h er t h e probative value of t h e evi den ce i s sub st an t i all y ou tw eigh ed byi ts unf ai r p r eju d i ce.” Id
. ( em ph asi s add ed). R u l e 403 “ w ou l d seem t o requi re excl u si on onl y i n t h ose i n st an ces w h ere t h e t ri alju d g e b e li eves t h at t h ere i s a gen u i n e ri sk that t h e em ot i on s of t h e j u ry w i l lbe exci t ed to i rrat i on albeh avior , a n d th at t h i s r i sk i s di sproporti on ate t o t h e probative value of t h e of feredN o. 08- 41008

7 ev i d en ce.” Id
. M o r e o v e r , “[a ] b a lda s s e r tio n th a t t h e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f e x tr in s ic of fen se evi den ce w as sub st an t i al l y ou t w ei gh ed byi t s prej u di ci alef fectdoes not sh ow a n a b u se of d i scre ti on b y th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” Un i t ed Stat es v. B erm ea , 30 F
. 3d 1 539 , 1 562 (5t h C i r. 199 4)

. C ockrel lha s m ad e nothi n g m ore t h an j u stsuch a ba l d assert i on . W e pr e v i ou sl y h ave f ou n d that t h e probative value of pri or dru g conspir acy convic t i on s i s n ot sub st an t i al l y ou t w ei gh ed by u n fai r prej u di ce. See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 33 4 F. 3d 40 6, 41 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 03 ) (f i ndi ng no u n fai r prej u di ce f

rom a dm i ssi on of

evi den ce of

sei zure of

178 ki l ogram s of
m a r iju a n a to s h o w in te n t in a cr a c k co c a in e co n s p ir a c y); B roussard , 80 F
. 3d at 104 0 (f i n di n g n o un fai r prej u di ce f rom ad m i ssi on of

“ convic t i on f

or posses si on of fift y to 2 0 0 po u n d s of m a rij u a n a ” w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te to sh ow i n ten t t o d is tr ib u te co c a in e ); Un itedS ta tes v . Ha rr is , 932 F. 2d 1529, 1534 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) (f i n di n gn o un fai r prej u di ce f rom adm i ssi on of evi den ce of

pri or m eth a m p h eta m i n e m a n u factu ri n g a ctiv iti es to sh ow i n ten t i n con sp i ra cyto
m anufac t ure m et ham phet am i ne c as e)

. C oc kre l l ’ s pri or c onvi c t i on i n 2000 w as te m p o r a llyp r o x im a te to th e cu r r e n t o ffe n s e fo rw h ic h C o c k r e ll w a s a r r e s te d in 2 0 0 7
. “A l th ou gh rem oten ess of th e ex tri n sic a cts ev i d en ce m a y w ea k en i ts p r o b a tiv e v a lu e , th e a g e o f th e p r io rco n v ic tio n d o e s n o t b a rits u s e u n d e rR u le 4 0 4
. ” B roussard , 80 F
. 3d a t1 040 (f i n di n g n o prej u di ce f rom adm i ssi on of

pri or convic t i on t h at w as m ore t h an 10 yea rs bef ore t h e charged of

fen se) ; seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch avez , 119 F
. 3d 342 , 346 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) (f i n di n g n o abu se of di scr et i on i n t h e adm i ssi on of a 1 5 -y e ar- ol d conv i ct i on )

. N or w as t h e evi den ce of t he pr i orof

fens e o f a “hei nous nat ure ” s uch a s w ou l d in c i t e aj ury t o a n ir r a tio n a l d e c i s io n o n th e ch a r g e s b e fo r e it. Se eBe e c hum , 582 F. 3d at917. Las t l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg av e e xt e ns ive a nd i m m e di at e li m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i o ns fo llo w in gth e a d m i s s i o n o f th e p r io ro ffe n s e te s tim o n y . Se ei d. ; B roussard , 80 F
. 3d at 104 0 (f

i n di n g t h at an y prej u di ce w as m i n i m i zed by l i m i t i n g i n st ructi onN o. 08- 41008

8 given i m m edi at el y af t erex t r i nsi c of

fens es of

fer ed i nt o e vi denc e)

. Acc or di ngl y, w e f i nd n o a bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. B C o c k r e ll a ls o co m p l a in s a b o u t t h e a d m is s io n o f te s tim o n yre g a r d in gh is arrestat t h e F arm er’ s B ran ch poli ce s t ati on . T h e o ff i cers t est i f

i ed that t h ey o b s e r v e dC o c k r e l l co n d u c tin gw h a t a p p e a r e dto b e a h e r o in tr a n s a c tio n o n h is cel lph on e w h i l e at t h at s t ati on . Th e y a rr e st ed C ockrel lon u n rel ated
o ut s t and i ng w ar r ant s , a nd t he s e ar c h i nc i de ntt o a r r e s tt ur ne d up a s yr i nge a nd 1. 4 gram s of m et h am ph et am i n e, a qu an t i t y suff i ci en tt o be f

or personaluse or di s t r ibut i o n. The y di s c o ve r e d no o t he rdr ug pa r ap he r nal i a o ri n di c i a o f dr ug d e a lin ga c tiv itie s . I n itia lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s in c lin e dto e x c lu d e th is evi den ce because i tbel i eved t h at w h en C ockrel lw as arres t ed, hi s part i ci pa t i on i n t he c ons pi r ac y w as ov er . The c our t t hought t he evi denc e w oul d be dupl i c at ive and unn ec es sa r y. H ow eve r , i t r ec ons i der ed w hen t he gov er nm entc l ar i f i ed t hat t he c o n spi rac y w as s t i l lo ngo i ng att he t i m e o f, a nd a f t e r , t he a r r e s t
. The govern m en targu ed that t h e ev i den ce w as i n t ri n si c t o t h e ong oi n g conspir acy an d theref

ore adm i ssibl e. I tal so argu ed t h at i t n eeded t h i s t est i m on y becau se C ockrel lha d sh ow n t h rough cr oss- exam i n ati on of t h e governm en t ’ s w i t n esses t h at no dru gs ha d ever act u al l y been sei zed f rom C o ck re ll . T h e di st ri ctcourt i ni t i al l y r ul e d t hat“ e vi de nc e o f t he di s c o ver y o f

t he m e t ham phe t am i ne a nd
e v e r y th in gth a t w e n t o n a t t h e F a r m e r ’ s B r a n c h P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t is in tr in s ic t o t h i s overal lco n spi racy. ” Th e di st ri ctcourtf u rt h er r u l ed that even i f not i nt r i ns i c , e vi de nc e o f

m e t ham phe t am i n e p oss ess i on i n di str ibut abl e q uantit y w as rel evan tan d ad m i ssibl e u n der F ED . R. E VID . 404 (b) t o show i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. The di s t ri ctcourtrej ect ed C ockrel l ’ s argum en tt h at t h e pr ej udic e o ut w e i ghe d the p r o b a tiv e v a lu e b e c a u s e th e g o v e r n m e n t h a dn o e v id e n c e o f h e r o in d is c o v e r e d in C o c k r e ll’ s p o s s e s s io n a n dn e e d e dto b e a b le t o c o u n te rt h e d e fe n s e t h a t n o h e r o in
w a s e v e rfo u n din C o c k r e ll ’s p o s s e s s io n . F o ll o w in gth e g o v e r n m e n t ’sN o. 08- 41008

The district court’s comm en t st hat thegovernme nt nee ded evi denceof the 2 metha mpheta mine possession because no heroin was actuallyfound in Cockrell’ s possessio n are problematic. Specifically , the district court stated: “[G]ive n the fact that the governme nt doesn’t h ave . . . any heroin that was discovered on Mr. C ockrell, Ithink that the governme nt still h a s s o m e n e e d th er e to c o unt er th e d ef e n s e th at
. . . no h eroin wa s ever f o und on Mr. Cockrell.” This would appear to be preciselythe impermissible purpose for whichthe evi dence cannot be used. The jury is not allowed to infer from evidence of possessionof onedru g that the defen dantmust have also possessed some other drug
. Although this reaso nin g give s us pause , th at statement was outsi de the he ar ing of the jury, and the jury was properly instructed as to how it coul d consi der this evidence. Moreover, theme thamphetamine evidencewa s notj u stevidenceof dru gpos se ssion , b ut evidenceof dru gp os se ssionof a dis tribu table quanti ty . A j urycould properly infer an intent to di stribute from evidence of pos se ss ion of

one drug in a dis tributab le quantity. 9 presentati on of

t h i s evi den ce, C ockrel lasked fo r an i n st ructi on i f t h e evi den ce w as bein ga d m it t ed u n der R u l e 404 (b) , rat h er t h an as i n t ri n si c evi den ce. H a v in gh e a r dth e e v id e n c e , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te dth a t t h e te le p h o n ic h e r o in tran sa cti on w a s i n tri n sic, bu t t h e m eth a m p h eta m i n e w a s 40 4 (b) ev i d en ce. It gr ant ed Cockr el l ’ s r eques t , and i m m edi at el y f ol l ow i ng t he t es t i m ony, gave an i ns t r uc t i o n s i m i l art o t he o ne g ive n r e ga r di ng t he he r o i n c o nvi c t i o n. C o c k rellap p ea rs to ch a l l en ge the ad m i ssion of th i s ev i d en ce u n d er b oth pron gs of

t h e B e e c h u m t est
. H e contend s t h at t h e evi den ce w as n otrel evan tf or an y perm i ssibl e pu rpose becau se i tshow ed on l y t h at he w as i n possess i on of
m et h am ph et am i n e i n a persona l

- u se qua n t i t y, w h i ch i s not rel evan tt o w h et h er h e possess ed h eroi n , a di f ferent drug, w i t h an i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. C ockrel lal so contend s t h at adm i ssi on of t h e evi den ce w as un fai rl y prej u di ci alan d , coup l ed
w i th ad m i ssion of th e p ri or h ero i n co n victi on , co m p ou n d ed th e p reju d i ci a leff ect. C o ck re ll ’ s n o t-g u il typ lea p u t h is in te n t su ffi cie n tlya t issu e to ju s tify
a d m is s io n o f e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e . B roussard , 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 0 . C o c k r e ll
n on et h el ess rai ses t h e qu est i on w h et h er t h i s evi den ce w as rel evan tt o show i n t en tat al l
. W e f

i n d that i tw as. Th e evi den ce s h ow ed that C ockrel lapp eared t o b e m a k in garrang em en t s f or a heroi n sal e, not j u stt h at he possessed
m et h am ph et am i n e. 2 Bot h t he e vi de nc e o f t he ap pa r e nt he r o i n s al e an d theN o. 08- 41008

10 e v id e n c e o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e p o s s e s s io n w e r e re le v a n t t o s h o w th a t C o c k r e ll h ad the requ i si t e intent f or the cri m e charged

))t o po s s e s s he r o i n wi t h a n i nt e nt t o di st r ibute
. I gno r i ng t he t e s t i m o ny o f b o t h o f f i c e r s , Coc kr e l ls t at e s t hatt he qua nt i t y po s s e s s e d was an am o unts uf f i c i e ntf o rpe r s o nalus e . Pr e s um ab l y he
w i shes u s t o f

i n d that t h e onl y i n t en tt h at c ou l d be i n ferred i s an i n t en tt o use t h e drug , not t o di st ribu t e. B u tt h e evi den ce w as cl e a r: 1 .4 g ra m s of
m et h am ph et am i n e w as consi st en tw i t h ei t h e r p e rsonaluse or di s t r ibut i o n. T h u s, on e cou l drea son a b l y in fer an in ten t to p oss ess the dr u g w i th an i n ten t t o d i strib u te

))th e sa m e inten t t h a t i s ch a rg ed i n the cu rren t of fen se. M o re o v er, i t is a ccep tab l e to i n fer su ch i n ten t e ve n wher e t he pr i o ro f fe ns e dr ug i s di f

fe r e nt fr o m th e d r u gch a r g e din t h e c u r r e n t o ffe n s e . See , e . g. , B ooker , 334 F. 3d at412 ( adm i t t i ng e vi de nc e o f m ar ij uanao f

fe ns e t o s ho w i nt e nti n c r ac k c o c ai ne con sp ir a c y); B roussard , 8 0 F .3d a t 1 0 4 0 (ad m ittin gevi den ce of m arij u an a of

f en se to sh o w in te n t in co ca in e co n sp ira cy ). W e al so f

ind t h at t h e probative value of t h i s evi den ce w as not
s ubs t ant i al l y o ut w e i ghe d b y any unfai r pr ej udi c e . The e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng t he t e l e pho ne dr ug t r ans ac t i o n and t he di s t r ibut ab l e q uant i t y o f m e t ham phe t am i ne w er e cont em por aneous w i t h t he her oi n co nspi r ac y w i t h w hi c h C oc kre l lw as c har ge d. M o r e o ve r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg av e pr o pe rl i m i t i ng i n st ruc t i o ns i m m edi atel y f

ol l ow i n g t h e t est i m on y a n d ag ai n i n t h e j u ry charge befor e de l ibe r at i o ns . Al t ho ugh the j ur y c o ul d i nfe rCoc kr e l l ’ s i nt e ntt hr o ugh t he t est i m on y o f

a num be ro f

w i t ne s s e s w ho pur c has e d o rr e c e ive d d r ugs f rom C ockrel l , t h e governm en tn eeded corroborat ive evi den ce of tha tintent. M ostof t h e w i t n esses w ere i n d icted and un i n di ct ed co- conspir ator s, m an y of w h om r e c e iv e dim m u n ityo rp le a a g r e e m e n ts , a fa c t th a t th e d e fe n s e u s e dto re p e a te d ly att ack credibi l i t y. G iven C ockrel l ’ s c h oi ce t o defend i n t h i s m an n er, i tw as not
a n a b u s e o f d is c r e t io n t o a d m it t e s t im o n y r e g a r d in g t h e e v e n t s a tth e F a r m e r ’s Bra nc h po l i c e s t at i o n f o rt he p u rpo s e s o f

s ho w i ng i nt e nta nd t o s upp o r ta nyN o. 08- 41008

11 in fe r e n c e o f in te n t th a t m ig h t b e d r a w n fr o m o th e rte s tim o n y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . Buc hana n , 70 F. 3d 818 , 831 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (f i n di n g probi t y of

ext ri n si c of

fen se e v id e n c e e n h a n c e d w h e r e d e fe n s e a tt a c k e dw itn e s s cr e d ib ility ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Henthorn , 815 F
. 2d 304 , 308 ( 5th C i r. 19 8 7 ) (f i n di n g ad m i ssi on of

past of fen se e v id e n ce p ro p e r w h e re d e fen d a n t a tta ck e dcr e d ib il ityof g o v e rn m e n t ’s
w i t ne s s e s )

. Fi nal l y, w e no t e t hate ve n i f t hi s e vi de nc e w e r e dup l i c at ive a nd
unne c e s s ar y, Coc kr e l lw o ul d b e e nt i t l e d t o no rel i e f b e c aus e he ha s m ad e a b s o lu te lyn o s h o w in go f p r eju d ic e . Cole m an , 78 F. 3d at156. III Fo rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM
.