### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 29, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12607 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 22 -C R -R W S -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K A R E N K I N G , a .k .a . K a r e n J o n e s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 29, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K a r e n K in g ap p e a ls h e rc o n v ic tio n f o rim p o r tin g a n d tr a f

f ic k in g in2

c ount e r f e i tgoods on the gr ounds tha ta ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s l i s t e d i n he ri ndi c tm e nt w er e uncon st i tut i on al and the di stri ctcourterre d i n adm i tt i ng evi dence of her p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n , su p erv i sed rel ease st atu s, an d fi n an ci al d i ffi cu l t i es. B ecau se K i ng f a i l e d t o m ove the di s tr i c tc our tt o s tr i ke the a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s a nd the prob at i ve val ue of the evi dence of her c on vi ct i on , supervi se d rel ea se , and fi nanci al pr obl e m s outw e i ghe d i t s pr e j udi c i a l na tur e , w e a f

f i rm K i ng’ s c onvi c t i on. B AC KG RO UN D K i ng w a s a s e l f

- e m pl oy e d e xpor t e ra nd i m por t e rof goods f ors a l e i n a nd out s i de of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . K i ng or de r e d a s hi pm e ntof a thl e t i c s hoe s f

r om C hi na tha tw a s s e i z e d by C us t om s & B or de rP r ot e c t i ons i n J une 1999 f orbe a r i ng r e gi s t e r e d tr a de m a r ks of N i ke . O n J a nua ry 14, 2003, a gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d K i ng f ori m por t i ng a nd tr a f

f i c ki ng i n c ount e r f

e i ta thl e t i c s hoe s . 18 U . S . C . §§ 545, 23 20 (a ). O n J une 11, 2003, a s upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e ntw a s r e turne d a nd on A ugus t10, 2004, the gr a nd j ury r e turne d a s e c ond s upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e nt . T he s e c ond superc edi ng i nd i ctm enti ncl ud ed tw o agg ra vat i ng fa ct ors bas ed on no n-st atut ory s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s . T he f

i r s ta ggr a va t i ng f

a c t orw a s tha tthe r e t a i l va l ue of the coun t er fe i ti t em s e xcee ded $ 70 , 00 0 and the se cond fa ct or w as thatK i ng com m i tt ed the of f e ns e w hi l e unde rac r i m i na l j us t i c e s e nt e nc e of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . I n 1996,3

K i ng ha d be e n c onvi c t e d f orutt e r i ng c ount e r f

e i tm one y , a nd f

r om F e brua ry 1998 throu gh M ar ch 20 00 , she had been un der s up ervi se d rel ea se . A tno t i m e be f

or e ordur i ng tr i a l di d K i ng m ove t o s tr i ke the a ggr a va t i ng f a c to r s f r o m th e in d ic tm e n t. K in g in s te a d s tip u la te d to th e f a c ts r e g a r d in g b o th f a c t or s . T he di s tr i c tc our t , w i th the pa r t i e s ’ c ons e nt , di d nots ubm i tthe a ggr a va t i ng f a c to r s to th e ju ry d u r in g tr ia l o rd u r in g ju ry d e lib e r a tio n s . B e f or e tr i a l , K i ng m ove d t o e xc l ude the i ntr oduc t i on of he rpr e vi ous conv i ct i on . T he di stri ctcourthel d thatthe previ ou s c on vi ct i on coul d b e i ntrodu ce d unde rF e de r a l R ul e of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e 404( b) f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e of s how i ng K i ng’ s s t a t e of

m i nd a nd abs e nc e of

m i s t a ke . T he di s tr i c tc our tga ve l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on s t o the j ury w hen thi s e vi dence w as i ntrodu ce d and w hen the j ury w as char ged o n the l aw . T he go vernm ental so no t ed the l i m i t ed nature of the evi dence d u ri n g cl o si n g arg u m en t s. A tthe ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s , K i ng a r gue d tha ts he m i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve d the s h o e s w e r e g e n u in e a n d d id n o t in te n d to im p o r t c o u n te r f e it s h o e s . D u r in g tr ia l, the go vernm entca l l ed K i ng ’ s probat i on offi ce r a s aw i tness . T he prob at i on offi ce r t es t i fi ed, am on g o ther thi ng s, thatK i ng w as havi ng fi nanci al di ff i cul t i es . K i ng w as c onvi c t e d a nd ul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d t o s e ve n m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntf

ol l ow e d by three ye ar s of s up ervi se d rel ea se .4 STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w i s s ue s f

i r s tr a i s e d on appe a l f

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a rr i s h, 427 F . 3d 1345, 1347 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs of the di s tr i c tc our tf

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N di a y e , 434 F . 3d 1270, 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). DI S CUS S I ON K i ng r a i s e s thr e e i s s ue s on appe a l : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o s tr i ke the a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s i n the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nta s “ s urpl us a ge ” i n vi ol a t i on of her F i fth and S i xth A m endm entri gh t s; (2) the i ntrodu ct i on of evi dence of her pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on a nd s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e s t a tus vi ol a t e d F e de r a l R ul e of E vi dence 404 (b); and (3) the i ntrodu ct i on of evi dence of her f i nanci al di ff

i cul t i es w a s undul y pr e

j udi c i a l . W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. F i r s t , K i ng a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e rr e d w he n i tdi d nots tr i ke the a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s f r om the i ndi c tm e nt . S he a r gue s tha tthe a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s i n the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e ntw e r e s urpl us a ge be c a us e the y a r e not s ta tu to ry c r im e s a n d th a t th e u s e o f th e s e a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s im p lic a te s h e rF if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to in d ic tm e n t b y a g r a n dju ry f o rin f a m o u s c r im e s a n d h e rF if th a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts to a f a ira n d im p a r tia l tr ia l. K in g ’s a r g u m e n t f a ils . T h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e d o n o t p e rm it th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to5

stri ke surpl usage e xcepton a m ot i on by the defendant . R ul e 7(d) s t at es that

“ [ u] pon the de f

e nda nt ’ s m ot i on, the c our tm a y s tr i ke s urpl us a ge f r om the in d ic tm e n t o rin f

o r m a tio n .” T h e A d v is o ry C o m m itte e N o te s to R u le 7 ( d ) e x p la in tha t“ [ t ] he a uthor i ty of

the c our tt o s tr i ke s uc h s urpl us a ge i s t o be l i m i t e d t o doi ng s o o n d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n . . . .” B e c a u s e K in g d id n o t m o v e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s tr i ke the f

a c t or s a s s urpl us a ge , s he w a i ve d the r i ghtt o c om pl a i n on appe a l tha tthe a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s , the f

a c t s of w hi c h s he l a t e ra dm i tt e d, w e r e i nc l ude d i n the in d ic tm e n t. K i n g ’ s rel at ed arg u m en tth atth e ag g rav at i n g fact o rs m ad e th e i n d i ctm en tso d efect i v e as t o d ep ri v e th e d i stri ctco u rto f su b j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er th e case a l s o f a i l s . K i n g ’ s a r g u me n ti s f o r e c l o s e d b y c o n tr o l l i n g a u th o r i ty . Th e Su p r e me C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t “d e f e c ts in a n in d ic tm e n t d o n o t d e p r iv e a c o u r t o f its p o w e rto a dj udi c a t e a c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 535 U . S . 625, 630- 31, 122 S . C t . 1781, 17 85 (200 2). S e c ond, K i ng a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of h er p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n an d h er su p erv i sed rel ease st atu s, b u tev i d en ce o f p ast c r i m e s orw r ongs c a n be a dm i tt e d a ttr i a l t o e s t abl i s h the de f e nda nt ’ s s t a t e of

m i nd, i nt e nt , orl a c k of

m i s t a ke . F e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) . E vi de nc e of pr i orw r ongs m a y be adm i tt ed i f i tsa t i sf

i es a three -partt es t : “ (1) the evi dence m ustbe re l evantt o an6

i s s ue othe rtha n de f

e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) the pr oba t i ve va l ue m us tnotbe subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce ; (3) the go vernm entm ustoffe r suff i ci entproo f s o thatthe j ury c ou l d fi nd thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed the ac t . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z, 42 6 F . 3d 13 44 , 13 54 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S ta te s v . H o g a n , 9 8 6 F .2 d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . T h e f ir s t a n d th ir d p a r ts a r e e a s ily s a tis f

ie d . T h e e v id e n c e o f

K in g ’s p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n w a s a d m itte d to e s t abl i s h tha tK i ng di d notm i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve the s hoe s w e r e notc ount e r f e i t , a nd K i ng doe s notc ont e s ttha ts he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tc onc l ude d tha tthe pr oba t i ve va l ue of

the e vi de nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by i t s undue pr e j udi c e . K i ng pl a c e d he rs t a t e of m i nd s qua r e l y a ti s s ue i n he rope ni ng s t a t e m e nt w h e n s h e a r g u e d th a t s h e r e c e iv e d th e c o u n te r f e it s h o e s a s a n a c c id e n t o rm is ta k e . T h e p re ju d icial i m p ac t w as m in im al b ec au se th e tes ti m o n y r eg ar d in g K in g ’s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on w a s of s hor tdur a t i on, a nd the j udge ga ve pr ope rl i m i t i ng i n stru ct i o n s t o th e j u ry. F in a lly , K in g e rr o n e o u s ly a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of

he rf i na nc i a l di f

f i c ul t i e s . R ul e 404( b) pe rm i t s e vi de nc e of m o tiv e . “[ E ]v id e n c e o f f in a n c ia l d if

f ic u ltie s is a d m is s ib le in f r a u d p r o s e c u tio n s to dem on stra t e kno w l edge, m ot i ve, i nt ent , desi gn , and absence of mis t ake. ” U ni t ed7

S t at es v. M et al l o, 90 8 F . 2d 79 5, 79 8-99 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). CONCL US I ON K in g ’s c o n v ic tio n is AF F I RME D.